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.