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

IT is insane how much interesting and detailed information any user with internet  can find today, especially if he knows where to look.

You guy s are amazing, some of stuff here were 15 or 20 years ago available to very narrow circle of experts and maybe spies from opposite side :D

 

I guess sim itself reflects this expertise sometimes when you have time to look around , attention to realistic details is amazing. After 15 years of playing it i still manages to pull out some surprise and blow you away.B|

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2016 at 5:49 PM, Damian90 said:

Of course, what if funny, majority of WarPact countries after testing T-62 said "well yeah, you know it's a junk, can we please get something better?".

 

Or at least that thing happend in Poland, same with IS-3... actually we still have IS-3's (2) that we got for tests, tests results were... interesting, so interesting in the end we purchased more IS-2's. ;)

 

Well initially there wasnt anything better, at least not until the T72 came around and approved for export & licensed production. Russians werent  certinaly weren't going to be sharing the more state of the art T64.

 

Honestly the T62 was really just meant as a temporary interim solution until newer gen tanks could finish development, because the T54/T55  D10T 100mm APHE already had difficulty with the likes of the M48, and would have had even more trouble against the M60 Frontal Armor.r. that is before APDS and HEATFS were developed in the later half of the 60s for it, making them relevant again. so  ultimately T62 was just a stopgap, an upgunned t55 in a nutshell. so yes until the Arrival of the T72. T62 was the best Warpact nations would  hope to get.

 

 

as for the seond point  IS3 seems to easily be better than the IS2 tank. Thicker armor, and more effective sloping, less possible shot traps.  Perhaps its just that thier price wasnt worth it, that & the Heavy tank concept was deemed obsolete once the MBT philosophy was in full swing. 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

Honestly the T62 was really just meant as a temporary interim solution until newer gen tanks could finish development, because the T54/T55  D10T 100mm APHE already had difficulty with the likes of the M48, and would have had even more trouble against the M60 Frontal Armor.r. that is before APDS and HEATFS were developed in the later half of the 60s for it, making them relevant again. so  ultimately T62 was just a stopgap, an upgunned t55 in a nutshell. so yes until the Arrival of the T72. T62 was the best Warpact nations would  hope to get.

 

 

I have read a comment from a Israeli general, who maintained the 115mm gun was a not that inferior to the 105mm L7

It is allegedly very accurate up to about 1600m but beyond that range the guns accuracy diminishes dramatically.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marko said:

I have read a comment from a Israeli general, who maintained the 115mm gun was a not that inferior to the 105mm L7

It is allegedly very accurate up to about 1600m

 

Well if they were practising on shotting at T-62s at 3,000m and the T-62's were "very accurate" up to about 1,600m then I think he'd be very happy. :)

 

Tank guns tend to have nice flat trajectories (at under 2,000m at least) so under 2,000m* its pretty easy to just lay on and shoot - hence "Battle Sabot" range techniques.

 

* The exact distance varies of course but certainly 1,700m and under should be very straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Can not confirm this but I remember a conversation on team-speak .

With guy who was very knowledgeable on soviet armour. who maintains the soviets conducted a terrain survey and decided 1600m was the average engagement range to expect in the European theatre.

But then why would they spent so much time and effort developing barrel launched long range missiles for there tanks Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Has anybody else heard this about average engagement ranges in Europe, ?   

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

as for the seond point  IS3 seems to easily be better than the IS2 tank. Thicker armor, and more effective sloping, less possible shot traps.  Perhaps its just that thier price wasnt worth it, that & the Heavy tank concept was deemed obsolete once the MBT philosophy was in full swing. 

 

Actually after tests IS-3 was a complete crap. In the IS-2 ergonomics were terrible, so imagine IS-3 was worse, but what was eve worse was that... the hull was cracking because was badly designed, there was already problems with frontal pike nose due to heavy turret being so close to the front, but even worse cracking was found on the hull belly.

 

And IS-3 was tested after the war in the 50's, before any concept of MBT in Soviet Union and WarPact born.

 

Quote

Has anybody else heard this about average engagement ranges in Europe, ?   

 

Yeah in Poland it's about 2000m on avarage. Which is surprising considering Poland is mostly flat farmlands.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marko said:

I have read a comment from a Israeli general, who maintained the 115mm gun was a not that inferior to the 105mm L7

It is allegedly very accurate up to about 1600m but beyond that range the guns accuracy diminishes dramatically.

 

. indeed the 115mm gun's Velocity and penetration to the ammunition used at the time at least. The APFSDS round was very effective up to 1600, and would be even further out had T62 had it been built with dedicated optical rangefinders, however the T62 mod 1975 was  then being built with a KTD laser rangefinder. From what i recall it was only around 2500m where the 115mm started loosing out on accuracy compared to the 105mm. 

however you the real limitations of the soviet gun  was more related to the limitations of the T62, not the Gun itself.  th guns only disadvnatage was was longer reload rate and T62 limitations how the gunner could not rotate turret or track targets through the T62 sight while reloading.

 

So yes on paper the U5TS 115m is indeed superior, but  in practicality its somewhat of a moot point when  l7 105mm  could be reloaded  much faster, and even with older ammunition didnt have much issue punching through the  steel armor of the T62.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marko said:

Can not confirm this but I remember a conversation on team-speak .

With guy who was very knowledgeable on soviet armour. who maintains the soviets conducted a terrain survey and decided 1600m was the average engagement range to expect in the European theatre.

But then why would they spent so much time and effort developing barrel launched long range missiles for there tanks Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Has anybody else heard this about average engagement ranges in Europe, ?   

 

My guess? 

 

They optimized the fire control and gun for the 1600 meter engagement range.  Why build an expensive long range gun and fire control system if you know you'll be fighting at short or medium range?  Especially when you know that accuracy at long range is difficult?

 

But of course there can still be long range shots.  ATGMs are great for those, so use the gun within it's envelope, and then develop a missile to counteract the shortcomings of it's FCS at longer range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/30/2016 at 5:41 PM, Iarmor said:

 

If the subject interests you, I recommend to try and get the English version (if it's already available) of "The Wars of Modern Babylon: The Rise and Fall of the Iraqi Army" book by Pesach Malovany.

I believe that Malovany contributed some knowledge to the "The Iran-Iraq War" book as well.

 

The English version is now on Google Books.

Edited by Iarmor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 7/4/2016 at 6:18 PM, Damian90 said:

 

Actually after tests IS-3 was a complete crap. In the IS-2 ergonomics were terrible, so imagine IS-3 was worse, but what was eve worse was that... the hull was cracking because was badly designed, there was already problems with frontal pike nose due to heavy turret being so close to the front, but even worse cracking was found on the hull belly.

 

And IS-3 was tested after the war in the 50's, before any concept of MBT in Soviet Union and WarPact born.

 

 

Yeah in Poland it's about 2000m on avarage. Which is surprising considering Poland is mostly flat farmlands.

 

agree to disagree

 

the IS3 was a improvement to the IS2. take the production issues out with its armor being hard and easier to crack. Apart from worse mobility the IS3 was a clear cut design improvement over the IS2, given that it entered service during the last days of ww2. The ww2 Tiger tank was not a piece of crap, despite reliability issues and being expensive to produce relative to medium tanks, It was feared by the allies . IF these IS series were so crap the West wouldn't have  scrambled to create post ww2 heavy tank class platforms with bigger guns Like the UK did with the Conqueror or the  US with the M103 to counter the Soviet  post war IS series and the T10 tank. 

 

again argument is kinda moot as by the Time the 105mm tank platforms like the m60, or later model Centurions,  those would have no issues with IS2 armor thus making the heavier slower reloading tank obselete. Even the 90mm M48 with heat would be a big threat to the IS2.

 

Again by the 1960s the heavy tank concept was fallen out of favor due to the shifting to the MBT philosophy.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this book a couple months ago...

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X9FB828/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

It was stated that the T-10, and its immediate predecessor prototypes, was developed because the IS-3 was a complete dog.  The above-mention armor cracking, terrible fighting compartment, barely operable engine due to vibration dismounting the engine during use, and under-strength transmission and suspension that broke down after limited use.  It was stated that the IS-3 was only brought out for parades and full production ceased after less than a year.  It was eventually modernized because the IS-4 was an even worse dog.  The modernization was only marginally successful and most IS-3s stayed in the reserves and didn't participate in maneuvers.  The Soviets seemed to have learned the lesson with the T-10 and T-10M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 7/31/2017 at 11:14 AM, thewood said:

I read this book a couple months ago...

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X9FB828/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

It was stated that the T-10, and its immediate predecessor prototypes, was developed because the IS-3 was a complete dog.  The above-mention armor cracking, terrible fighting compartment, barely operable engine due to vibration dismounting the engine during use, and under-strength transmission and suspension that broke down after limited use.  It was stated that the IS-3 was only brought out for parades and full production ceased after less than a year.  It was eventually modernized because the IS-4 was an even worse dog.  The modernization was only marginally successful and most IS-3s stayed in the reserves and didn't participate in maneuvers.  The Soviets seemed to have learned the lesson with the T-10 and T-10M.

 

it was a dangerous dog

 

M103 and Conqueror were built in response to the post ww2 IS series of tanks. and the more recent T10. IF they were really such crap. Nato wouldn't have bothered building Counters.

 

Frankly those Nato tanks were also sort of "dogs" depending on how you look at   them and were quickly retired once the MBT philosophy was in full swing and respective countries had the L& 105mm guns and tanks like the M60 , L7 armed Centurions, and the more powerful 120mm Chieftain.

 

TH reason why T10 was the best heavy design from all those tanks was because it actually had pretty good mobility for a heavy. It was hoenstly Medium tank Grade mobility.  (and not to mention a good gun).  IT out did the T54 in mobility and was more or less matched with T55 and T62in that regard. ONly probelm was its cost, and Fuel consumtion compared to these tanks which meant it needed more logistics and couldnt keep up with those tankss. Even so the T10after relegated to Reserves once USSR had a healthy amount of T64 and T72 tanks.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IF they were really such crap"

 

Ever hear of the infamous missile gap?  Western intelligence tended to not evaluate the actual quality of Soviet equipment.   Billions of dollars were wasted chasing after Soviet prortypes.  There are numerous examples of the analysts hyping Soviet capabilities that turned out to just that...hype.  The IS-3 is a perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/22/2017 at 9:57 PM, thewood said:

"IF they were really such crap"

 

Ever hear of the infamous missile gap?  Western intelligence tended to not evaluate the actual quality of Soviet equipment.   Billions of dollars were wasted chasing after Soviet prortypes.  There are numerous examples of the analysts hyping Soviet capabilities that turned out to just that...hype.  The IS-3 is a perfect example.

 

 

 

or the Mig25.

 

 

 

Soviets could not outspend the US trying to in turn counter the equipment made based on "overhyped soviet designs" and in turn helped lead to the bankrupting the USSR, thus loosing the "cold" war. a From 1991 - mid 2000s the Russians military was in shambles. Only just in the last few years has the Russian military has  the recovery to seriously be replacing and modernizing thier dated equipment. The military of Today looks in far better shape than they did say just back in 2008 when their military was mobilized to for the Russo- Georgian conflict. That aside IT still has created a decade + technology gap in many areas between them and the US. 

 

seems to me those billions turned out being well spent actually.

Edited by Kev2go

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