Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-62s in Russian Army

    Share

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  runaway on Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:25 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    TR1 wrote:http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
    HEAT-FS rounds were also substantially more accurate than APFSDS (which might also be surprising to a Western reader). This is reflected in the Soviet deviation criterion, which was more strict for HEAT rounds (0.21 mil) than for APFSDS rounds (0.25 mil). However, in practice HEAT-FS rounds were even more accurate. As control trials of a random mass-production T-64A held in the 70s (the details of which were made available to the author) indicated, while APFSDS rounds hugged the outer bounds of acceptance criterion, HEAT-FS rounds actually demonstrated the average deviation of well under 0.1 mil!
    Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the current APFSDS ammo then are not that accurate because of the way the sabot separates. Not only that, these sabot are either steel or lighter alloys that are still heavy enough to induce a few errors in the trajectory of the rod. If this is the case, then improved APFSDS rounds should look more and more like their nato counterparts by the design of the sabot and the composition of the sabot (albeit with minor adjustments due to different L/D)

    Effective range direct fire vs. 2m high target HEAT 1010 m APFSDS 2120 m
    You stand corrected

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:35 am

    Otherwise you should have known these basics!

    and the source of your numbers?

    Soviet T-62 tank, firing from (smoothbore) cannon at a range of 1000 meters against a target moving 19 km/h, was rated to have a first-round hit probability of 70% when firing a kinetic (APFSDS) projectile.

    Under what conditions? What specific ammo types? What size is the target? Is the target moving at a steady 19km/h or is it driving following a path?

    Under the same conditions, it could expect 25% when firing HEAT round.[7] This affects combat on open battlefield with long lines of sight; the same T-62 could expect a 70% first-round hit probability using HEAT rounds on target at 500 meters.

    The [7] suggests a note, how about letting us see that quote?

    Well, if the turret points in the wrong way...its Not ready to fire!

    Who cares whether it is pointing at the target or not when it is being loaded and therefore not ready to fire anyway. The point is that the gun moves off the target to make it quicker and easier to load. The stabilisation system returns the gun back to the point of aim as soon as it is loaded. For the gunner having the gun stay in place but have the loader have to ram a round at a strange angle that is difficult would actually be worse than having it move to an angle that is easier to load.

    In modern tanks the turret follows aim and the gun moves in reload cycle. As soon as the gun is loaded its back on sight, and with the moving turret you can fire immediately.

    The gunners sight is not wielded to the main gun... the gunner can continue to follow the target... the gunners sight is able to move independently from the gun barrel, and even the T-62 has two plane gun stabilisation and a stabilised gunners sight...

    We are not talking about moving 60 degrees to reload and then having to move 60 degrees back to fire...

    You don't understand deviation criteria is dependent on the ammo type.

    As TR-1 posted the Soviet HEAT rounds performed better in terms of accuracy than their APFSDS rounds from that period did. The difference was not just in penetration performance but also accuracy.

    Without a clean Sabot separation at the muzzle APFSDS rounds can actually be rather erratic and any error at "launch" is only magnified by distance.

    If heat has a natural deviation of 1m at 1000m, apfsds have a natural dev of 2 dm. When firing at moving targets in windy conditions, the heat is increasingly inferior to apfsds.
    (Not exactly figures, but a way to make it easier to understand)

    Effects on projectiles are related to time, so for instance the longer a projectile hangs in the air the more it is effected by wind or gravity. Such things however are predictable and can be incorporated into aiming tables to allow for.

    Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the current APFSDS ammo then are not that accurate because of the way the sabot separates.

    Modern APFSDS rounds are very accurate. We are talking about Soviet ammo of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Effective range direct fire vs. 2m high target HEAT 1010 m APFSDS 2120 m
    You stand corrected

    Would be interested to know where these figures are coming from and what ammo types and gun types they refer to.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:05 am

    Indeed, BM-15 was known for huge velocity loss at range.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:51 am

    **chews popcorn**

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  runaway on Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:59 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Soviet T-62 tank, firing from (smoothbore) cannon at a range of 1000 meters against a target moving 19 km/h, was rated to have a first-round hit probability of 70% when firing a kinetic (APFSDS) projectile.

    Under the same conditions, it could expect 25% when firing HEAT round.[7] This affects combat on open battlefield with long lines of sight; the same T-62 could expect a 70% first-round hit probability using HEAT rounds on target at 500 meters.

    The [7] suggests a note, how about letting us see that quote?

    7.^ Jane's Armour and Artillery 1981–82, p. 55.

    The gunners sight is not wielded to the main gun... the gunner can continue to follow the target... the gunners sight is able to move independently from the gun barrel, and even the T-62 has two plane gun stabilisation and a stabilised gunners sight...

    We are not talking about moving 60 degrees to reload and then having to move 60 degrees back to fire...

    The T-62's main gun is the 115mm U-5TS smoothbore. Because of the length of the shell, the main gun elevates after each recoil. This, coupled with the complicated fire control system, means the tank can maintain a rate of only four to five rounds per minute, as opposed to Centurions 10 r/m.

    Also, the turret cannot be traversed during the loading sequence. This combination of drawbacks made the T-62 particularly vulnerable to Israeli tanks during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

    The 115mm 3BM-6 APFSDS-T has a muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s and its maximum effective range is 3,000 m, although most accounts of effective combat range mention 1,500 m. The official direct-fire range against a target 2 m high is 1,870 m, while against a 3 m tall target it is 2,260 m.

    Janes

    And guys, iam sorry i was offensive and abit abusive, but to call my writing HEAT inferior in hit probability vs APFSDS for Rubbish sent me spinning. You really should have said you meant a specific round and year. welcome







    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:42 am

    7.^ Jane's Armour and Artillery 1981–82, p. 55.

    Sorry, but I think modern sources of information based on real inside knowledge are rather more valuable and believable than western estimates from the early 1980s where most "information" was estimate and guesswork and mainly opinion.

    The T-62's main gun is the 115mm U-5TS smoothbore. Because of the length of the shell, the main gun elevates after each recoil. This, coupled with the complicated fire control system, means the tank can maintain a rate of only four to five rounds per minute, as opposed to Centurions 10 r/m.

    As I said above... rate of fire is only part of the puzzle and is really only important if you intend to miss a lot.

    Rates of fire are relative... even with a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute does that mean the tank will even see 20 targets worth shooting at and engage them all in a single minute?

    Most tank tactics I have read about involve moving from covered position to covered position... firing and then moving... where possible moving through dead ground with no line of sight of the enemy to another position to fire from.

    Also, the turret cannot be traversed during the loading sequence. This combination of drawbacks made the T-62 particularly vulnerable to Israeli tanks during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

    And yet they were happy to use captured T-62s themselves... that is a bit odd isn't it?

    The 115mm 3BM-6 APFSDS-T has a muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s and its maximum effective range is 3,000 m, although most accounts of effective combat range mention 1,500 m. The official direct-fire range against a target 2 m high is 1,870 m, while against a 3 m tall target it is 2,260 m.

    These facts are empty.

    I would assume that these are the results of Israeli testing of captured tanks and captured ammo, which is unlikely to be that much like Soviet tanks and Soviet ammo.

    How can we tell how accurate Soviet HEAT rounds are based on Israeli results with Arab tanks that may not have even been issued with Soviet standard HEAT rounds?

    I have a very low opinion of JANES... except their articles on SAMs written by a certain American expert (SOC).

    They like to cut and paste... for several decades the Stechkin was a heavy obsolete weapon that was not effective, yet from every Russian source it was a highly desirable and effective weapon, yet even in the 1990s it was the same entry... heavy and obsolete and the writer couldn't understand why such a backwards and useless weapon was in a modern army. No comments when HK VP-70Z pistols and Glocks with 3 round burst fire capability were developed, or when various machine pistol replacements for the Stechkin were revealed.

    And guys, iam sorry i was offensive and abit abusive, but to call my writing HEAT inferior in hit probability vs APFSDS for Rubbish sent me spinning. You really should have said you meant a specific round and year.

    My apologies... For much of my life I had very little access to Russian sources and not being able to read or speak Russian I have relied on translations and interpretations from western experts who now seem to have had the mantra that if it sounds too good to be true it is propaganda, and if it sounds bad then it must be the truth. Therefore heavy ERA that will stop APFSDS rounds is a myth and the T-64 eats the arms of 10 tank gunners before breakfast every day is truth.

    The other myth is that the way the west does things is the right way and therefore anything the Russians try that is not the wests way is wrong... the west loves APFSDS rounds so if the Russians perferred HEAT for a while then they must be wrong.

    Equally the west has invested a lot of time and money in solid rocket fuels for ballistic missiles, so if the Russians are making liquid fuelled missiles it is because they are backward or have some problem. of course this ignores the benefits of liquid fuel... cheaper, more powerful, fully storable for the life of the missile just like solid fuel... and allows the much easier and safer handling of empty missiles with fuelling in place.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  runaway on Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:34 pm


    As I said above... rate of fire is only part of the puzzle and is really only important if you intend to miss a lot.

    Rates of fire are relative... even with a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute does that mean the tank will even see 20 targets worth shooting at and engage them all in a single minute?
    Well, its no drawback to being able to have 20 tanks firing 10r/min, makes 200r/min against a 20 strong force of tanks which fires 4r/min, makes 60r/min. Other factors are of course detection, battlemanagement and hitting. But with 200 vs 60 r/min, thats certainly an advantage.



    And yet they were happy to use captured T-62s themselves... that is a bit odd isn't it?
    Not really, they modified it, removing the 115mm for the 105mm. Called it Tiran 6,and enhanced armor protection. I dont however know if the reload sequence with a non moving turret during reload was changed.


    interpretations from western experts who now seem to have had the mantra that if it sounds too good to be true it is propaganda, and if it sounds bad then it must be the truth. Therefore heavy ERA that will stop APFSDS rounds is a myth and the T-64 eats the arms of 10 tank gunners before breakfast every day is truth.

    The other myth is that the way the west does things is the right way and therefore anything the Russians try that is not the wests way is wrong... the west loves APFSDS rounds so if the Russians perferred HEAT for a while then they must be wrong.

    Agree, the West has always underestimated russian arms, as did Hitler, and he paid the prize.
    But still, some arms hasnt been a succes, and the T-62 is one of them. In case of western arms there has also been less succesful machines. The M551 Sheridan for example, is probably amongst the worst tanks/IFV´s ever imposed on an army.

    I standby my opinion that the T-62 wasnt a succes, the 115mm gun was.



    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:59 am

    They kept plenty of T-62s with 115mm - plus the 105 conversion is obviously due to ammunition standardization, not really performance.

    Also, not all 105mms are the same Wink .

    Comparing T-62 to Sheridian is absurd.

    T-62 served successfully in many wars, was respect by its opponents, when properly used did very well, served WELL past its time, and was produced in massive numbers.
    Like I said, its like calling every Western tank a failure, since many of them had even worse armor.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:03 am

    But with 200 vs 60 r/min, thats certainly an advantage.

    Rate of fire to a tank is like rate of fire to a sniper.

    Unless you are get caught in a time warp or are intending fighting thousands of Chinese tanks then rate of fire is not that important.

    Modern tanks have very large rounds which limits the number they can carry at once. The winner wont be the vehicle that fires the most, it will be the one that hits accurately first.

    Not really, they modified it, removing the 115mm for the 105mm. Called it Tiran 6,and enhanced armor protection. I dont however know if the reload sequence with a non moving turret during reload was changed.

    Actually they evaluated the 115mm gun as being very good and kept them till their supplies of captured ammo were used up before replacing them.

    I standby my opinion that the T-62 wasnt a succes, the 115mm gun was.

    Well then, you would have to ask yourself why they are only withdrawing them now. You'd also have to ask why take them to Afghanistan, why take them to Georgia?

    The Sheridan was not a great tank, but it was an adequate tank in comparison with other tanks operated by air borne forces.

    The thing that ruined the Sheridan was its gun/missile system.

    The huge irony of course is that the Sheridan made the top 10 worlds best tanks on the History channel, which just goes to show how biased and one eyed western experts really are...

    I standby my opinion that the T-62 wasnt a succes, the 115mm gun was.

    I will respect your right to that opinion even if I disagree.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  runaway on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:12 am

    TR1 wrote:Comparing T-62 to Sheridian is absurd.

    I didnt. I said the T-62 wasnt a succes, but it was a well balanced tank for its time, the Sheridan however was a huge failure.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  runaway on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:24 am

    GarryB wrote:Modern tanks have very large rounds which limits the number they can carry at once. The winner wont be the vehicle that fires the most, it will be the one that hits accurately first..
    Agree, modern tanks. Although it wont be a disadvantage to be able to fire quickly rather than slowly.


    Actually they evaluated the 115mm gun as being very good and kept them till their supplies of captured ammo were used up before replacing them.
    Yes, and they also uparmored, changed engine and radios, so it was a good tank, not great, but good.



    Well then, you would have to ask yourself why they are only withdrawing them now. You'd also have to ask why take them to Afghanistan, why take them to Georgia?
    As a well balanced tank of its time, it could certainly do the job as fire support against gerillas. And vs Georgia it was attached to motor rifle brigades, also in the role of infantry support. I dont think they wanted to go tank battling with T-72s.





    The huge irony of course is that the Sheridan made the top 10 worlds best tanks on the History channel, which just goes to show how biased and one eyed western experts really are....
    Totally agree, it would be much more interesting to see a Russian version of top 10 tanks..


    I will respect your right to that opinion even if I disagree.
    And i respect yours, maybe we should start a new thread on T-72 and see if we can brawl some..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:38 am

    Agree, modern tanks. Although it wont be a disadvantage to be able to fire quickly rather than slowly.


    All other things being equal a high rate of fire is not a bad thing.

    It is just not the most critical feature.


    Yes, and they also uparmored, changed engine and radios, so it was a good tank, not great, but good.

    The engine change and radio change is perfectly normal... using your own engines and radios makes them more compatible with your logistics train.

    And vs Georgia it was attached to motor rifle brigades, also in the role of infantry support. I dont think they wanted to go tank battling with T-72s.

    They had plenty of newer tanks available if they feared Georgian T-72s capabilities with their Israeli upgrades.

    Totally agree, it would be much more interesting to see a Russian version of top 10 tanks..

    Would actually rather see the top x tanks from country y for a range of countries... Britain, France, Germany, Russia, US, etc etc.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-62s in Russian Army

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:01 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm