T-62s in Russian Army

I've heard that during the war in south ossetia the russians still used T-62s yet they were quite succesful against the modernized georgian T-72Bs.

Have these tanks been decomissioned or will the russians still have to use these outdated pieces of metal if the georgians decide to invade again(this time probably further reinforced by merkavas or abrams tanks)?


If there is still a massive amount of  T-62s in the inventory would it be a good idea to export them to some 3d world country that still has rusty T-55s?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've heard that during the war in south ossetia the russians still used T-62s yet they were quite succesful against the modernized georgian T-72Bs.

Have these tanks been decomissioned or will the russians still have to use these outdated pieces of metal if the georgians decide to invade again(this time probably further reinforced by merkavas or abrams tanks)?


If there is still a massive amount of T-62s in the inventory would it be a good idea to export them to some 3d world country that still has rusty T-55s?

"At least 2,000 were inherited from the Soviet Union. 761 were in active service in 1995. 91 were in active service and 1,929 in storage as of 2000, 2005 and 2008. Currently there are around 100 in active service and less than 3,000 in storage."

"T-62 was more than twice as expensive as the T-55, and many Warsaw Pact nations passed on the new tank because they did not feel that the improvements inherent in it warranted the cost. Secondly, in 1968, a 100 mm HVAPDS tank shell capable of piercing Western armor was developed. Use of this ammo made the T-55 gun almost as effective as the T-62s, undercutting the T-62's original selling point: a bigger, more powerful gun. "

The T-62M can go up against 2nd line tanks, like M60 and Leo1 and be succesful. Against new tanks such as T-90, M1A2, Challenger2, Merkava3 and Leopard2 it stands no chance.

Although its much crew ability and training that is more important. T-62´s in middle east were crushed in the 67,73 wars, because the poorly trained arabs turned a well balanced tank into a death trap.

In georgia it was attached to infantry and was effective against APC´s and poorly trained and equipped infantry. One T-62 destroyed 2 T-72B´s, before it was taken out itself.

And no, its more value in upgrading a T-55 than to buy old T-62. However, more clients chose T-72, like Venezuela. Also the T-80 is on the market and sells some.
The 125mm gun can with new ammo defeat any tank today.

The georgians have bought 12 T-84 and 10 T-72 from Ukraine. No Merkavas or M1.

Runaways reply there pretty much covers it.

I do suspect they might find a few existing customers of the T-62 and offer them their stored models. The conflict in Georgia was fought with local assets... if it was planned in advance by Moscow the Georgians would have faced a much better equipped force.

Rear area units will have all sorts of obsolete equipment in service... simply because the generally don't actually need anything that is much better.

Current reforms mean however that a lot of obsolete old stuff will be scrapped to free up storage sites and save a bit of money.

What they actually do with the old vehicles is up to them and they will likely scrap the most worn out stuff, perhaps donate some of the more exotic stuff to museums, and then anything that is worth anything they will either offer to existing users in the hope of both getting rid of the vehicles and perhaps making a bit of money with upgrades, or to sweeten another deal.

For instance a country that already has 1,000 T-62s might want to scrap 500 of them but also upgrade the remaining 500, so they could do a deal where they buy another 500 and then get all 1,000 upgraded to a new level... the Russians get rid of 500 vehicles and get the upgrade contracts.

Another instance might be that a country is thinking about buying some Flankers and operates T-62s so to say thanks for buying the Flankers they can gift them 1,000 T-62s from storage plus a few thousands rounds of ammo, plus spare parts to keep their new and existing tanks operating for some time.

The point is that the Russians will have T-62s in storage, but also spare parts and engines and guns and ammo for those guns in storage, and production facilities to make the parts and the tanks and the guns... it would be nice to get rid of everything and remove the 115mm calibre from their logistics train.

So as I said, some will be scrapped, some will become shooting range targets for all sorts of platforms (attack helos, other tanks, ATGMs, etc etc), some will go to museums perhaps, some even to wealthy private collectors, some will be gifted or sold as they are, and some will be upgraded and sold.

I rather suspect nothing will be kept in service because they seem to be going for an all T-72 based fleet till armata/kurganets/boomerang become available.

For all the mess that the MBT fleet is in, where there is a 100mm rifled gun in T-54/55 vehicles and a 115mm gun in the T-62, and of course the T-64 and T-80 which use one set of parts and equipment and the T-72 and T-90 which use another set of parts and equipment and all the four latter mentioned vehicles use a 125mm smooth bore gun you pretty much have 4 completely different and not compatible tank sets.

By withdrawing the T-54/55 and T-62, and T-64 and old model T-72 vehicles and giving upgrades to the T-72s and to the T-80s to make them more like the T-90 then you end up with one gun calibre, and a range of weapons and sensors that are very similar if not exactly the same.

When armata/kurganets/boomerang start entering service the unification of systems and sensors and electronics and weapons and engines and transmissions etc etc will extend from just MBTS to also include IFVs, APCs, command vehicles, engineer vehicles, air defence vehicles, artillery vehicles etc etc etc.

It is going to be huge...

some even to wealthy private collectors

There's going to be a lot of ex-soviet equipment flooding the collector's market shortly.

Since August war, all T-62s have been removed from units, specifically Southern District, where most remained.

Georgia buying Oplot was mentioned in media, but so far there is no sight of an actual deal.

Actually i like the T-62,teledyne offered an upgraded suspension,engine,gunsight configuration in the early 90s.Add horseshoe/applque armour,its still a nice package( Third world/internal security purposes)

I am sure the israelis could do some good work with it too.

The only real problem with the T-62 was that when it was introduced with its new more powerful 115mm smoothbore gun the Soviets also introduced a new 100mm armour piercing round that increased its performance quite a bit.

The result was that the T-62 wasn't so much better than the tank it was supposed to replace and in fact T-54/55 production continued in the Soviet Union for export well into the 1980s, while the T-62, which was a good vehicle was fairly quickly replaced by the T-64.

The T-62 was developmental dead end. A stopgap tank. In many ways it was actually worse than the T-55. Itwas only a justification to put a bigger gun. By the time the T-64 and T-72 appeared the T-62 was redundant. However the USSR had to do something with the thousands of them so they modernised some and selled the part to the third world.

I think this video shows what the T-62 was like:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:The T-62 was developmental dead end. A stopgap tank. In many ways it was actually worse than the T-55. Itwas only a justification to put a bigger gun. By the time the T-64 and T-72 appeared the T-62 was redundant. However the USSR had to do something with the thousands of them so they modernised some and selled the part to the third world.

I think this video shows what the T-62 was like:

In what way was it worse than T-55?

T-62 was a perfectly good vehicle for the time, indeed very advanced in some ways (gun).
And the old girl did her work as late as Ossetia 2008. Not bad for a stopgap.

It was the most widely used tank during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as it was found to be much more reliable in rocky mountainous terrain. The T-72 suspension couldn't handle it and most were withdrawn soon after. The same reason applies to the the T-62 use in Chechnya...

The 115mm gun of the T-62 had plenty of growth potential that wasn't realised because the Soviets knew the British were working on a rifled 120mm gun and the west germans and Americans were working on a similar larger gun.

The 115mm gun was revolutionary in that it was the first operational smoothbore main tank gun to see service.

Very simply if you are firing a dumb HE shell then if you want it to hit anything then you fired it from a rifled barrel because that stabilised it in flight and kept it flying point forward which allowed long shell shapes that improved aerodynamics and increased range. The 100mm gun of the BMP-3 is rifled because its primary ammo is HE FRAG shells.

For a tank however its two primary rounds are HEAT and APFSDS rounds... spinning the shells rapidly disperses the plasma beam the HEAT round generates on impact which reduces its performance, and most small calibre Sabot APFSDS rounds are too long and narrow to stabilise by spinning and need fin stabilisation... just like darts or arrows can't be stabilised by spin alone.

The solution was a smoothbore barrel which had a lot of extra benefits... smoothbore barrels are lighter and cheaper, and for a given muzzle velocity they can be shorter than rifled barrels, or if they are the same length they can either operate at lower pressures or generate higher velocities. They are easier to clean, but most importantly they don't complicate HEAT and APFSDS rounds... in a rifled gun you need slip rings for such rounds to prevent them from spinning in flight.

Note the fin stabilisers in rounds fired from smoothbore barrels often generate a slow rate of spin, but nothing like the rate a rifled gun would impart.

The first T-64 also had a 115mm gun, though later models got 125mm smoothbores... just the same as the M1 Abrams had a 105mm rifled gun, but the tank that entered service, the M1A1 had a west german smoothbore.

The irony is that while such early tanks got bad reputations from combat in the Middle East, when captured and given only minor upgrades (often just handrails etc) they performed adequately in the hands of the Israelis against the Arab forces.

In fact I remember reading about one particular battle where the T-62s became a serious threat to the Israeli forces because the T-62s were equipped with night vision equipment and at the time the Israeli vehicles were not. The Israeli forces managed to survive to daybreak and then fight off the counter attacks.

Cyberspec wrote:It was the most widely used tank during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as it was found to be much more reliable in rocky mountainous terrain. The T-72 suspension couldn't handle it and most were withdrawn soon after. The same reason applies to the the T-62 use in Chechnya...

Actually it had nothing to do with suspension - T-72 was never deployed to Afghanistan en masse.
No point in advanced tanks vs bandits.

T-72 was also used widely in Chechnya, most T-62s were MVD.

TR1 wrote:Actually it had nothing to do with suspension

It did. Do a search on it...

Cyberspec wrote:

TR1 wrote:Actually it had nothing to do with suspension

It did. Do a search on it...

You got an authoritative source to back that up?

It is a myth turned into "reality" by being repeated enough.
T-72 suspension has never been problematic.

The only problem with suspension with modern soviet tanks was with the T-64 which started out using small wheels, but got a reputation for sheding them easily and later reverted to larger wheels like those used on the T-72.

The story I have read is that the T-72s were not sent to Afghanistan in large numbers was because they were not seen as necessary. It made more sense to send older vehicles with upgrades to protect them from RPGs.

It remains a god of tanks,the gun was phenomenal in the 70s and very early eighties,u-5ts was nice.I was happy to see it play role in recent disturbances.

I'll have to look for a source since it was a while ago I read it. From memory, I think there were a discussion on "Harkonen's" blog and on the "Otvaga" forum.

T-72 was never deployed to Afghanistan en masse.
No point in advanced tanks vs bandits.

The brand spanking new BMP-2 was used in masse against bandits though...why not stick with the BMP-1??

The T-72 wasn't considered top of the line...more of a second echelon weapon. The best units in East Germany were mainly equipped with T-64's and T-80's

The only problem with suspension with modern soviet tanks was with the T-64

I didn't say the T-72 had flawed suspension, just that the T-55 and T-62 were better suited to the Afghan terrain...which isn't exactly tank friendly terrain

Big difference = the BMP-2 had a weapon that was more useful against the Mujahedeen (the high elevation 30mm compared to the 73mm HEAT gun), while no such advantage existed for the T-72 vs the T-62.

T-72 may have been cheaper tank than T-80, but there were plenty in front line units + in GSFG.

The T-72 has better protection from RPG rounds, better sights, more powerful HE rounds....We can go on like this forever...

We can go forever, but the fact remains that T-72 was never deployed to Afgahnistan and then withdrawn due to problems. The fact is no unit sent to A-stan was even mounted on T-72s.

T-62 was adequate enough for the job, especially with BDD armor.
HE difference was negligible, and same with sights. They were not engaging a modern armored enemy here.

There are plenty of photos of T-62s in A-stan, why are there zero of T-72?

They were definitely there in small numbers and specifically for testing....the result of the tests were what we've writing about

The brand spanking new BMP-2 was used in masse against bandits though...why not stick with the BMP-1??

The BMP-2 had a high elevation main gun and with the add on armour side plates was largely protected from the sides and rear from 50 hmg fire.

The T-72 wasn't considered top of the line...more of a second echelon weapon. The best units in East Germany were mainly equipped with T-64's and T-80's

The T-72 was still front line, but not first echelon main strike units. It was a breakthrough tank that was supposed to replace all the older models, though it never did. It was also popular as an export tank as well.

The T-72 has better protection from RPG rounds, better sights, more powerful HE rounds....We can go on like this forever...

The Soviet tanks had their primary protection from the front and therefore were all vulnerable from the side and rear to RPG attacks. With the very cheap measure of add on armour on the front of the turret and hull the T-54/55 and T-62 tanks could have frontal protection to stop RPG rounds and still be cheaper than using T-72s.

There were more T-54/55s made than any other tank, and they made quite a few T-62s before the T-72 replaced them in front line units.

It simply made more sense to use the older vehicles with the cheaper ammo because they were used largely as mobile gun platforms anyway... when they were base defence vehicles.

They were definitely there in small numbers and specifically for testing....the result of the tests were what we've writing about

Well they took all sorts of vehicles in there including Shilka and SA-13 despite the enemy having no aircraft, and they even tested the Yak-38M in the ground attack role in competition with the Su-25.

Perhaps if you can post a link with these discussions we can take it further... till then this is akin to my chats with an American guy that claimed the T-80 was rubbish because the M1 Abrams easily defeated it in Desert Storm in 1991... honest he had some friends who were there and saw them.

(Not that I am suggesting any deceit on your part Cyberspec... )

If I find it I'll post it here, but it was something like 5 or more years ago...I think you guys are nitpicking a bit

.I think you guys are nitpicking a bit

Your comment seemed to suggest that the T-72 never went to Afghanistan because it couldn't handle the terrain and that that was also a reason it wasn't widely used in Chechnia.

I think we showed a lot of restraint...

AFAIK the T-72 was never deployed to Afghanistan in significant numbers, but was actually widely deployed to Chechnia... where it was found to be the safest Soviet tank to operate in as long as you only carried the 22 rounds in the autoloader and ditched the loose ammo in the crew compartment.

If you have information about the T-72 being deployed in Afghanistan and then a decision not to send it there being made on its performance then I would like to read about that.

It is not a jibe at you, I am not teasing or trying to be a smart arse.

I have said previously that the Hind-A was not widely deployed to Afghanistan and have found I was wrong on that count, it was used there quite a bit.

I do however want to check your sources... certain tank experts... even respected ones have been known to be a bit negative about certain models because they either were made in the Ukraine or were not and as such would be prepared to entertain any story that puts them in a negative light.

I do however want to check your sources

I can't find it

GarryB wrote:

.I think you guys are nitpicking a bit

Your comment seemed to suggest that the T-72 never went to Afghanistan because it couldn't handle the terrain and that that was also a reason it wasn't widely used in Chechnia.

The T-62 was less prone to break downs and logistically more suited.

... certain tank experts... even respected ones have been known to be a bit negative about certain models because they either were made in the Ukraine or were not and as such would be prepared to entertain any story that puts them in a negative light.

Yeah, there's a fair bit of that going on...