Neither the T-62 or the Patton would stand a chance again a modern MBT. It would be like the Iraq Type-59/69 tanks against Abrams all over again.
Would have said the same about Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs with 50mm guns and short barrel 76mm guns respectively against T-34s and KV-1s but it was not as one sided as you might think it should be.
These T-62s have gun launched anti tank missiles with a range of 5km so a repeat of Desert Storm where Abrams tanks started to engage enemy tanks at 5km where the Abrams had a OK chance of a hit and the enemy tanks had a zero chance of a hit on the Abrams tanks would not happen... there would be no distance from which a western tank could engage T-62s where the T-62 could not hit back.
The number of enemy MBTs is minimised by Russian Artillery and control of the air.
It would be like the US invading Iraq with M60s only and no Abrams tanks... they still would have kicked the arses of the Iraqi forces because the 25mm cannon of the Bradleys and anti tank guided missiles and air power made a major contribution to the numbers of Iraqi vehicles destroyed... many were destroyed in their dug in positions by B-52 carpet bombing runs... which were used against the republican guard who had most of the T-72s.
Now a T-62 against a Ukrainian T-64, maybe if the Russians get lucky...but I put my money on the T-64.
That is the problem though... it isn't one on one... it will be a dozen T-62s and air power and artillery and plenty of ATGMs and RPGs against each T-64 that is still working that might have quarter filled fuelled tanks because that is all they have left and BTW some of the flash electronics aren't working because they were damaged and there is no where to fix them...
Actually if you manage to flank them you can destroy abrams with t-62s.
Even from the front you can destroy an Abrams by waiting for its turret to turn and hitting it in the rear turret area to set off its ammo.
A 115 mm gun can still absolutely take on even the heaviest NATO armor. Just don't engage it at the front where the armor is strongest and it should still wreck stuff.
The missiles are beam riders... how hard would it be to shift the sensor to the nose and fire them up into the air and as they approach the target mark the target so they dive down on the targets in a top attack mode... the upper hull armour on an Abrams is pathetically thin and relies on angling to stop heavier rounds... change the angle and eliminate the angling and seriously weaken the armour.
These tanks are practically write-offs: the regular Russian Army armored troops would not take them since they have long since standardized around three men per tank, aside from technical obsolescense of course.
In the past it made sense because when you called up your reserves... many of them served on these older tanks so they would be familiar with them despite a few upgrades to improve performance like missiles and laser range finders, but these days 50 year old potential soldiers called back to duty probably operated T-64s or T-72s when they served in the late 1980s...
It just makes sense as a first tank or a familiar tank for allies and neighbours... with cage armour and APS systems added they could actually be quite well protected against modern weapons.
Suicide drones proved their effectivness. Your opinion doesn't matter here. Having at least 20 lancet hitting the engine of 20 abrams or leopard 2 is a huge advantage. With 100 even better. And that's the price of not even 1 t-72.
Instead of guiding Lancet Suicide drones at enemy targets... it makes more sense to guide supersonic Kornet missiles which can penetrate any of those vehicles from the front out to 8.5km.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6
