Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Koen

M60A3 (TTS) vs T-62

91 posts in this topic

M60A3 (TTS) seem to defeat easily T-62, e.g. when they are positioned towards each other.

This even with Thermal Imager set as Damaged in M60A3 (TTS).

They both seem to spot each other at the same time, but M60 fires first, immediately,

whereas T-62 doesn't get a shot off, but waits - then they're eliminated.

Happens at range below 2000 m (or closer), so within T-62 range

Why would this be ?

NB seems to be the same with T-55A, T-64 (and tested at 3000m range: T-72)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my taste AI is always a bit slow to engage.

For the M60, it could model that the vehicle is equiped with an LRF, where the T-62 can only use stadia line to estimate the range to the target. What happens if you disable the LRF on the M60?

Also the quality of the stabilization could play a role...

And last idea: try to switches sides. I could be an issue with "crew quality" settings.

Blue side M60 shooting with your skill level from the shooting range, while the red T-tank is reduced in quality.

Does it happen with blue-T-tnak vs red-M60 too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can see each other at scenario start, it could be that the T-62 is still loading its gun, which takes a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Hah...I think all my ideas where wrong.

If you start the scenario with them facing each other, M-60 will win.

T-tanks have no round in the breach at mission start.

The loading process is just slow...and the M60 has a round ready earlier.

Hmm, should make a sce where they start further away from each other so that there is time to load, then drive towards each other and see what happens.

(but to late for that now...I'm off to bed)

edit: beaten by 2 minuts :-(

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well looking at the Wiki

M60 should have the edge on armour

260 vs 230mm turret

220 vs 200mm hull

and ammo 62 rounds to 40

But then T-62 is smaller, lighter and faster

2.4m vs 3.2m

40 tonnes vs 52 tonnes

50 kph to 48 kph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apart from their facing, are they ...

1. Static (engines damaged or similar)?

2. Got the same tactic (I guess Hold)?

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

The 115mm main gun on the T-62 is not that inferior to the 105mm according to a interview I watched with a retired Israeli general discussing the Yom Kippur War,

If it were not for the ridiculous spent cartridge ejection system I would give the T-62 the Edge over the M-60A1 variant anyway.

I really enjoyed commanding the T-62 in SB It felted like old school tanking

I fired hundreds of rounds and don't think I ever hit anything. LoL

somebody should run a range competition for the T-62 to see who can get the highest score. my guess nobody's getting over 50 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd give the Edge to the M60A3.

it's got a thermal, a laser rangefinder, and a much higher rate of fire.

armour difference is pointless if both tanks can kill eachother from the front.

T-62 has an edge on forward mobility, but the M60 has a good reverse gear.

T-62 is lighter and lower profile, which means it can cross bridges the M60 can't,

and advance concealed better than the M60.

however, the rate if fire and FCS is what kills it.

in the timespan the T-62 can get off one inaccurate shot, the M60 has already fired off at least 2-3 accurate shots, at a range the T-62 can't even effectively return fire.

and using artillery smoke to conceal the T-62 advance until you are within fighting range, might actually end up getting your tanks killed, since they will be blind coming out of the smoke, and the M-60 will see them deep inside the smoke cloud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I agree with Deja,

The M60A3 has a ton going for it compared to the T62, it basically has a M1 style FCS which enables very fast, very accurate gun laying, good stabilization etc. If you were trying to simulate the M60a1 in SB to my knowldedge you would have to disable pretty much everything (FCS, LRF, Thermal, Stabilization) aside from the gunners backup sights which would put it on more even footing with the T62 as modeled. Even then it wouldn't be 100% accurate as the M60a1 did have a coincidence/stereoscopic range finder and a "better" analog FCS than the T62. Also be sure to use the appropriate (worst) 105mm gun ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Deja,

The M60A3 has a ton going for it compared to the T62, it basically has a M1 style FCS which enables very fast, very accurate gun laying, good stabilization etc. If you were trying to simulate the M60a1 in SB to my knowldedge you would have to disable pretty much everything (FCS, LRF, Thermal, Stabilization) aside from the gunners backup sights which would put it on more even footing with the T62 as modeled. Even then it wouldn't be 100% accurate as the M60a1 did have a coincidence/stereoscopic range finder and a "better" analog FCS than the T62. Also be sure to use the appropriate (worst) 105mm gun ammo.

Agreed the M-60A3 TTS variant has a major edge over the T-62 but the A1 does not IMO.

I remember comparing the two in the land hall at bovington tank museum

The M-60 is one of the biggest tanks in the hall post WW2 anyway

The T-62 has a incredibly cramped turret the model on display had sections cut out so you Could look in the turret and see the various armour thickness around the turret.

But would Make for a small target at long range not a problem for the A3 TTS but would be for the A1. I remember reading the T-62 sights were optimised for 1600m.

This is what the soviets considered would be the average engagement range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Valley of Tears, there were accounts of Syrian tanks closing to within just a few meters and even co-mingling with Israeli Centurions defending from their ramparts- the primitive night fighting equipment gave the T-62s and T-55s some advantage when the sun went down, nullifying the Israelis' long range, pre-sighted gunnery skills. Still, you read about how even then Syrian crews managed to fail to acquire or hit Israeli tanks when they would have targets that were right next to them.

The T-62 'FCS' actually includes a crew of 2- both the TC and gunner, the TC should actually be performing ranging duties and should be giving the gunner the information as well as the order to fire. In Steel Beasts, the player has more discretion and freedom when to shoot without the chain of command, so the player is potentially faster on the draw than a real life T-62 crew, but perhaps without the assistance from the TC- the gunner has to do all the work (the gunner has the tools to do it all himself, but procedurally, this isn't how it would normally work). Steel Beasts omits an AI TC handing off the estimated range, but it's a design feature that probably works better that it didn't, to give it that distinct, more primitive feel (a computer TC accurately feeding the player range data would for all practical purposes behave like a computerized FCS after all). To play it and get more of a feel of the life of a T-62 crew, there ought to be two at least two players- a human TC and human gunner. A third human player driving would be even better.

The ranging system clearly is more primitive and cumbersome. But it's fun for gameplay purposes, it is definitely a change from the contemporary SB vehicles because of the extra skill required to survive. The feeling of accomplishment when you can hit something and live to brag about it is more satisfying because it is more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also suggest turning off automatic map updates for the T-62, so that the player can't

'cheat' and use that to estimate range data.

Sometimes the biggest threat to the T-62 aren't necessarily M60s, but any non-tank target with anti-tank capability like an ATGM. The optics aren't calibrated to range them, they can skate circles around you while you fumble to figure out their range. I can see how the Libyans got massacred by fast moving technicals in the Toyota War if they have no way to accurately hit back with their tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-62 has a incredibly cramped turret the model on display had sections cut out so you Could look in the turret and see the various armour thickness around the turret.

That's a T-55 cutaway.

(Apparently this is a "Training model" they increased the armour to give the new crews some "Comfort" )

But yes discussing an M60A3 versus a plain T-62 is unfair the A3 model has 10ish years development time advantage.

Now if we were to discuss the T-62AM and later models with LRFs applique armour and have them implemented in SB.

Or the other way round with the M60A0/A1 implemented.

Digression: It is curious how the western, older, tanks (M60, Centurion, Leopard) all seem to be the modified, later variants, but the T-62 seems to be the basic entry level model?

Then we'd have a discussion.

But as you all seem to be comparing apples with oranges, it all seems rather moot, we know the outcome.

That Thermal Sight is the biggest balance swinger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a T-55 cutaway.

(Apparently this is a "Training model" they increased the armour to give the new crews some "Comfort" )

But yes discussing an M60A3 versus a plain T-62 is unfair the A3 model has 10ish years development time advantage.

Now if we were to discuss the T-62AM and later models with LRFs applique armour and have them implemented in SB.

Or the other way round with the M60A0/A1 implemented.

Digression: It is curious how the western, older, tanks (M60, Centurion, Leopard) all seem to be the modified, later variants, but the T-62 seems to be the basic entry level model?

Then we'd have a discussion.

But as you all seem to be comparing apples with oranges, it all seems rather moot, we know the outcome.

That Thermal Sight is the biggest balance swinger.

The T-62AM would make for a interesting addition to SB so would some of the T-55 variants

But they would still be cannon fodder for the Leo-2 and M1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's out of the question. But what happens, if the other side doesn't have any tank at all?

At that point a hobbled museum piece suddenly has the potential to be king again.

I remember an exercise against a mostly LAV based force with mostly BTRs and BRDMs. And a lone, mostly disabled T-72 (this was before we have them playable, or before we even had T-55s that you could control from the external observer's position). I managed to basically annihilate en entire company within two minutes with that lone beast. As much as it was handicapped (no stabilization, just a handful of HEAT rounds), it still was a lion in a hen house.

Or think of Michael Wittman's charge into a largely unprepared column of armored vehicles at Villers Bocage. A lone Tiger against an armored regiment, and what carnage resulted in an encounter that at its high point lasted less than 15 minutes, wiping out the equivalent of an entire tank company and one transport company plus anti tank assets.

It's not so much the question whether the most modern T-62 or T-55 can be dangerous to a Leopard or an Abrams (and from a flanking position, the answer is still Yes). Think of asymmetrical scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx all for your feedback !

Very helpful.

(...) If you were trying to simulate the M60a1 in SB to my knowldedge you would have to disable pretty much everything (FCS, LRF, Thermal, Stabilization) aside from the gunners backup sights which would put it on more even footing with the T62 as modeled.

Even then it wouldn't be 100% accurate as the M60a1 did have a coincidence/stereoscopic range finder and a "better" analog FCS than the T62. Also be sure to use the appropriate (worst) 105mm gun ammo.

Reason why I asked the initial question, was that I might make an "Iran-Iraq 1981" scenario.

Turns out the Iranians had M60A1, see below.

So I'll playtest your set-up, Harlikwin, thx.

And I'll assume that the Iraqi's had the T-62 that is in SB.

Not unlikely, I suppose.

Iraq will be the Blue side, as T-62 is playable

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/war-conflicts-structures-toes-oobs/oob-iran-1980/

In September 1980 the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (IRIA) had following units garrisoned along the Iraqi border:

- 16th Armored Division, based in Ghazvin, with three ABs equipped with M-60A-1 MBTs and M-113 APCs, including 1st in Ghazvin, 2nd in Zanjan, and 3rd in Hamedan.

- 81st Armored "Kermanshah" Division, with three ABs equipped with Chieftain MBTs and M-113 APCs, including 1st in Kermanshah, 2nd in Islam-Abad-Gharb, and 3rd in Sar-e-Pol-e-Zahab.

(...)

****

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/war-conflicts-structures-toes-oobs/oob-iraq-1980-war-against-iran/

Standard Iraqi armored division (AD) of the time had two armored (equipped with 300 T-62 MBTs) and one mechanized brigade (with BMP-1 ICVs), a single artillery brigade (with self-propelled artillery), and support elements.

A standard Iraqi mechanized division (MD) had one armored brigade (equipped with 200 T-54/55s), one mechanized brigade (equipped with Czech OT-64s APCs or BTR-50s), and one artillery brigade, as well as support elements.

According to Western sources, in September 1980 the IrA operated some 100 T-72 tanks, probably attached to the 10th Independent Armored Brigade, based at al-Rashid Barracks, in Baghdad.

Some Iraqi sources state that the first shot of the war was in fact fired by their T-72s. However, there is no firm confirmation yet that the Iraqi Army indeed operated T-72s at this stage of the war.

Their first confirmed appearance occurred only in 1982.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alsso note that the Iraqi's...sucking at manouvre warfare mainly used their tanks as "pillboxes" and rolling arty pieces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx all for your feedback !

Very helpful.

Reason why I asked the initial question, was that I might make an "Iran-Iraq 1981" scenario.

Turns out the Iranians had M60A1, see below.

So I'll playtest your set-up, Harlikwin, thx.

And I'll assume that the Iraqi's had the T-62 that is in SB.

Not unlikely, I suppose.

Iraq will be the Blue side, as T-62 is playable

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/war-conflicts-structures-toes-oobs/oob-iran-1980/

In September 1980 the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (IRIA) had following units garrisoned along the Iraqi border:

- 16th Armored Division, based in Ghazvin, with three ABs equipped with M-60A-1 MBTs and M-113 APCs, including 1st in Ghazvin, 2nd in Zanjan, and 3rd in Hamedan.

- 81st Armored "Kermanshah" Division, with three ABs equipped with Chieftain MBTs and M-113 APCs, including 1st in Kermanshah, 2nd in Islam-Abad-Gharb, and 3rd in Sar-e-Pol-e-Zahab.

(...)

****

http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/war-conflicts-structures-toes-oobs/oob-iraq-1980-war-against-iran/

Standard Iraqi armored division (AD) of the time had two armored (equipped with 300 T-62 MBTs) and one mechanized brigade (with BMP-1 ICVs), a single artillery brigade (with self-propelled artillery), and support elements.

A standard Iraqi mechanized division (MD) had one armored brigade (equipped with 200 T-54/55s), one mechanized brigade (equipped with Czech OT-64s APCs or BTR-50s), and one artillery brigade, as well as support elements.

According to Western sources, in September 1980 the IrA operated some 100 T-72 tanks, probably attached to the 10th Independent Armored Brigade, based at al-Rashid Barracks, in Baghdad.

Some Iraqi sources state that the first shot of the war was in fact fired by their T-72s. However, there is no firm confirmation yet that the Iraqi Army indeed operated T-72s at this stage of the war.

Their first confirmed appearance occurred only in 1982.

The Iranians also used the chieftain MBT.

000_app2003042768334_si.jpg.d4431c5b1a41

000_app2003042768334_si.jpg.d4431c5b1a41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iranians also used the chieftain MBT.

Sure.

What proxy would I use in SB for the Chieftain ?

(in any case, M60-A1 is the most simple solution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-72M?

Not enough armour on the T-72m hedge.

The chieftain was over ten tons heavier

I would say the Leo_2 A4 with some key parts of the fire control disabled

You could also damage the suspension to slow it down not much you can do about the main Gun, Just use the ammo with the lowest penetration value.

Interesting fact.

The CR-1 was developed for the shah of Iran.

When he was deposed, the British army who were not due for a replacement for the chieftain

For some time were issued them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough armour on the T-72m hedge.

Actually an M1 version is a better fit.

T-72M1 is probably a smidge tougher given its composite rather than plain steel armour.

Chieftain has maybe 195mm (according to Wiki) RHA @ 60 which would equate to 390mm LOS thickness.

Here we have the LOS calc:

LOS thickness = Normal / Cos (LOS angle)

so

Cosine (60) = 0.5

Chieftain Armour thickness = 195mm (Wiki)

Therefore:

195mm / 0.5 = 390mm

T-72M1 has "about" 300 - 400mm RHAe (see LOS SB wiki)

The T-72 has composite armour and is a smaller design with less crew which is why it is lighter.

A Leopard 2A4 has up to 730mm RHAe which is way too much for a Chieftain.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72M1

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_2A4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually an M1 version is a better fit.

T-72M1 is probably a smidge tougher given its composite rather than plain steel armour.

Chieftain has maybe 195mm (according to Wiki) RHA @ 60 which would equate to 390mm LOS thickness.

Here we have the LOS calc:

LOS thickness = Normal / Cos (LOS angle)

so

Cosine (60) = 0.5

Chieftain Armour thickness = 195mm (Wiki)

Therefore:

195mm / 0.5 = 390mm

T-72M1 has "about" 300 - 400mm RHAe (see LOS SB wiki)

The T-72 has composite armour and is a smaller design with less crew which is why it is lighter.

A Leopard 2A4 has up to 730mm RHAe which is way too much for a Chieftain.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72M1

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_2A4

Not going to argue armour strengths hedge they seem correct.

But I stand by my choice yes the T-72 has decent frontal armour but its turret sides hull and engine deck have not

Plus I think the Iranians got there hand on some stillbrew kits for the chieftains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to argue armour strengths hedge they seem correct.

But I stand by my choice yes the T-72 has decent frontal armour but its turret sides hull and engine deck have not

Plus I think the Iranians got there hand on some stillbrew kits for the chieftains

Iranian, stillbrew? That's interesting, never heard that before.

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