Better adapted to the special operation: a new modification of the T-62M tank

149
Source: nevskii-bastion.ru

They do not allow to retire - a very accurate wording that characterizes the combat service of the T-62M. It would seem that the recent hostilities in Syria were the last item on the track record of these tanks, but began a special military operation in Ukraine. And even there, these machines found a place as an armored fist of volunteer and republican formations. But age takes its toll: "sixty-twos" are already rather outdated and do not meet all the requirements of our time. Based on this, the question of expanding the combat capabilities of the T-62M is once again raised. And it really can be expanded. An example of this is a tank modification developed several years ago, which was recently shown at the Army-2022 forum.

Sharp thermal eye


The changes did not affect the main armament of the modernized "sixty-two", however, its sighting and observation system underwent a serious processing. You may notice that the laser rangefinder mounted above the gun has disappeared from the turret. Instead, a simple armored plug was installed. The thing is that the tank got a new sight 1PN-96MT-02. It includes a thermal imaging channel and a range finder.



Assembled on a domestic element base, this sight, of course, has slightly worse indicators of the detection and identification range of targets in conditions of poor visibility (at night) than the same French Thales thermal imagers installed on T-90A tanks, but it works out in full. Its capabilities make it possible to detect an enemy tank at a distance of up to 3 meters. Considering that the "night lights" of the old T-000Ms, built on image intensifier tubes, provide several times less visibility, the 62PN-1MT-96 installation does not even look like a step forward, but a whole jump.

View of the left side of the upgraded T-62M. The folding mast of the MGOES is visible in the rear of the tower. Source: nevskii-bastion.ru
View of the left side of the upgraded T-62M. The folding mast of the MGOES is visible in the rear of the tower. Source: nevskii-bastion.ru

In combination with an electronic ballistic computer, the new thermal imaging sight greatly expands the firing capabilities of the T-62M, and we are not even talking about enemy armored vehicles. In today's realities, the use of these tanks is mainly limited to the fight against openly located and sheltered manpower, where the "teplak" can provide invaluable assistance, since the infantry is a rather difficult target to detect, not only at night, but also during the day.

The expansion of visibility from the tank does not end there. The upgraded T-62M was equipped with the MGOES system. This abbreviation stands for multispectral gyro-stabilized optoelectronic system. It is a fully stabilized unit, movable vertically and horizontally, mounted on a retractable mast in the rear of the tower. When folded, the height of the mast is 1,3 meters, and when fully extended it is 5 meters. The MGOES block combines a laser range finder and three channels: television, infrared medium wave and infrared near range.

Block MGOES. Source: nevskii-bastion.ru
Block MGOES. Source: nevskii-bastion.ru

If everything is more or less clear with television and medium-wave infrared (a conventional thermal imager), then the near-range IR sensor is a rather interesting thing. Unlike classical thermal imagers that react to thermal radiation from a target, near-IR cameras are able to register reflected infrared radiation from an object and transmit a very clear and detailed image to the display. Therefore, where a conventional thermal imager will display a luminous blurry spot in the shape of a person or some kind of tank on the screen, the near-range sensor will allow you to see almost chevrons or identification symbols on the sides (exaggerated). It also feels much better in really difficult conditions: in fog, dust, smoke and other curtains blocking visibility.

An example of a near-IR camera in fog. Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/428778/
An example of a near-IR camera in fog. Source: www.habr.com

Working in pairs as part of the MGOES, cameras of both infrared ranges significantly expand the T-62M's ability to monitor the area. And not only in range, but, taking into account the extended mast, it can be 4 km or more. Here, the term “high-quality amplification” provided by a dual-band module is more suitable.

Armor and mobility


As for security, here, apparently, they did not reinvent the wheel and went along the path of minimal changes.

The frontal projections of the hull and turret are already equipped with traditional overhead armor modules, which have become an indispensable attribute of the T-62M since it was put into service in 1983. They consist of a 30 mm thick outer steel cover and 5 mm steel sheets installed behind it, the space between which is filled with polyurethane. In this version, the tank is able to withstand hits from HEAT ammunition with a penetration of up to 450 mm, as well as feathered sub-caliber shells with a penetration of up to 350–380 mm in steel equivalent.

View from above. The mast of the MGOES and the right block of the hinged protection of the tower are visible. Source: rg.ru
View from above. The mast of the MGOES and the right block of the hinged protection of the tower are visible. Source: rg.ru

In fact, although with slight discrepancies, the level of this armor corresponds to the early modifications of the T-64, as well as the T-72M tanks, actively used by the Ukrainian side during a special military operation. Of course, such protection is not enough to perform tasks in close fire contact with enemy units armed to the teeth with modern anti-tank weapons. Nevertheless, it is quite enough where a heavy, mobile and armored "sledgehammer" is required, capable of knocking out enemy positions from safe distances.

But the sides were more fortunate - they were strengthened with the help of hinged dynamic protection "Contact", installed on the side screens. Here, of course, an interesting combination turned out, since earlier “reactive” armor was not found on the factory modifications of the T-62M. And this is bearing fruit. Based on open data, the side armor, together with the Kontakt, can withstand a 125-mm cumulative projectile from a tank gun in the course angles of maneuvering, and the arrival of stale single-block grenades and ATGMs will also end without much damage.

Hinged dynamic protection "Contact" and side / stern lattice screens. Source: rg.ru
Hinged dynamic protection "Contact" and side / stern lattice screens. Source: rg.ru

Also, the sides in the area of ​​​​the engine compartment and the stern received lattice screens as reinforcement, designed to protect against anti-tank grenades of the PG-7 type. The principle of their operation is widely known and is based on the destruction / damage of the cumulative funnel (lining) of these ammunition. The Research Institute of Steel in its open data indicates a 50% probability of destroying a grenade without breaking through the armor.

Separately, it is worth dwelling on the mobility of the new T-62M. The fact is that this car in its original version of the 1983 model was already extremely overweight. If the T-62 itself weighed 37,5 tons, then the additional armor blocks, mine protection of the bottom of 20-mm steel sheets and other minor changes brought its mass to 40,5 tons. The 620-horsepower tank engine coped with this load, frankly, with difficulty. In the new version, the T-62M has gained more weight due to dynamic protection, grilles and other equipment. In this regard, the tank was equipped with a V-46-5 diesel engine with a capacity of 780 horsepower.

Conclusions


If we move away from talking about the need for the T-62 in the SVO and take it for granted, then, whatever one may say, the modernized T-62M seems to be the most adapted to the modern realities of the combat use of these tanks. Basically, of course, because of the thermal imaging sight, which has long been an indispensable attribute of this class of equipment. In the current conditions, the rules of the game are as follows: who first saw, he struck. The new "sixty-two" fully complies with this requirement. Yes, there are comments on the base. The T-62MV, devoid of additional armor blocks, but having a full set of dynamic protection in frontal and side projections, would have looked more advantageous, but even in this version the tank has an overwhelming advantage over its unmodified counterparts.

As for the MGOES, the expediency of this decision can be confirmed or refuted only by practical application. In full performance, this system will not let a mosquito pass by without notifying the crew about it. But how it will show itself from an operational and financial point of view is a question. Although the product was not used in military trials, on the whole it looks promising and is not being demonstrated for the first time. Here, as they say, there would be money, and there would be application.
149 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    7 September 2022 05: 16
    Something reminded me of the Israeli modification of the T-55 for Slovenia, although they changed the gun
    1. +23
      7 September 2022 07: 26
      We are waiting for the t-55/54 with similar bells and whistles?
      1. +2
        7 September 2022 19: 49
        T34-85????
        1. +1
          8 September 2022 15: 59
          Tolko esli voyna prodlitsya eshe god.
        2. 0
          13 September 2022 00: 18
          Better adapted to the special operation: a new modification of the T-62M tank

          Well, yes. Better ... If the armature cannot be revived and put into operation ...
        3. 0
          1 December 2022 20: 42
          The T-34 will not work .. They had to be bought somewhere in Asia for parades. what
      2. +3
        7 September 2022 20: 26
        The bells and whistles are not bad, they are necessary. A sight with a thermal imager, DZ is great.
        But he drew attention to an unpleasant "trifle" - what prevented the installation of "boxes" of remote sensing around and on the roof of the tower? Let it not be a Relic, the main danger in the current conditions comes from cumulative grenades and ATGMs. Well, put at least minimal protection on the ZPU, so that 12,7 mm DShKM can be effectively used on occasion.
        1. 0
          9 September 2022 08: 53
          There is such a t-62m2, where instead of Brezhnev's eyebrows and overlays on the VLD, Contact-1 is installed, this modification has much worse resistance to BOPS, there is a suspicion that there is not much difference against the conditional RPG-7 between Contact and eyebrows / overlay, but from what something more serious and contact will not help much.
    2. +8
      7 September 2022 08: 34
      we have a modification, it seems the m6 co-125mm cannon. Soon we will get the T-55, since the war requires "large battalions" and the industry makes dozens of tanks. Here they need to be repaired, modernized and put into operation. Even if they are in poor condition.
      1. +3
        7 September 2022 11: 24
        There are many T-72s in modification A and they are in very poor condition. And upgrading them to an acceptable level is very expensive. The 7000 figure is way too high.
        1. +3
          7 September 2022 12: 42
          Quote: Civil
          We are waiting for the t-55/54 with similar bells and whistles?

          Tower T-55 on the running gear from T-64 (Ukraine)
  2. +5
    7 September 2022 05: 21
    Well, right, they didn’t cut it in due time, so you can put it into action. But for now, the LDNR is armed with simply armored T-62s without optoelectronic bells and whistles.
    1. +15
      7 September 2022 05: 24
      Better adapted to the special operation: a new modification of the T-62M tank
      soon, those who took Berlin will appear apparently ...
      1. +5
        7 September 2022 05: 27
        soon, those who took Berlin will appear apparently ...

        You don’t tell the MO, otherwise the Brazilian experience will be adopted and we will have our own X1А2
      2. -10
        7 September 2022 20: 54
        Quote: Aerodrome
        soon, those who took Berlin will appear apparently ...

        And this is not funny, I drew attention to such a fact, seemingly far from the interests of military affairs: plastic baskets disappeared from the Magnit and Pyaterochka stores, and stainless steel metal carts appeared. I asked the staff where the baskets were, they said that now they will not be there, there will be carts. So there may not be enough metal for new tanks. Well, tell me - do we have nowhere to put stainless steel if they make carts for supermarkets from it? You can no longer carry a package of kefir and a loaf in a plastic basket, do you need a cart?
        1. +8
          7 September 2022 21: 56
          Something you, excuse me, fantasize. Near the house there is a magnet and a five. And there, and there are heaps of baskets.
          1. 0
            8 September 2022 19: 45
            Quote: Ded60
            Something you, excuse me, fantasize. Near the house there is a magnet and a five. And there, and there are heaps of baskets.

            I have long gone out of the age of Vesnukhin about fantasies, which even a movie was shot. And you forgive "Magnit" and "Pyaterochka" stores that are large in volume? Those are the big supermarkets I mentioned.
            1. 0
              11 November 2022 10: 35
              These smart and very effective store managers periodically raise a wave. In my memory, in each of the food chain stores I visit, several such waves have already passed. They disappear, then they appear. I only saw carts in "Metro" and large "Tapes" where they come to stock up on a large scale and drive them straight to the cars to the parking lot.
        2. +2
          8 September 2022 05: 38
          Well, you're just like a little one. Shopping carts are much more profitable. I put 3 thousand in the basket, and everything, full, you go to the cashier. And the whole ten will fit into the cart. And with one loaf of bread in the cart, you won't go to the checkout looking "like a sucker." You will pick up something else to be not "like a sucker" but already exactly a complete sucker who was bred. And after that, do you still think that the owners of these stores care about some kind of CBO?
  3. +35
    7 September 2022 05: 27
    The upgraded T-62M was equipped with the MGOES system.

    How many tanks received such a system and what element base does it use? what
    It seems to me that the case was limited to a single exhibition sample.
    1. -16
      7 September 2022 06: 35
      Does it seem to give up? Get baptized
    2. +17
      7 September 2022 06: 49
      Quote: Tucan
      How many tanks received such a system

      Not at all - these are pictures from an exhibition.
    3. -1
      7 September 2022 12: 54
      Well, on the other hand, this sample is "having no analogues in the world", as always ..
  4. -16
    7 September 2022 05: 48
    Quote: Tucan
    The upgraded T-62M was equipped with the MGOES system.

    How many tanks received such a system and what element base does it use? what
    It seems to me that the case was limited to a single exhibition sample.

    Do not underestimate the Army-2022 forum, according to rumors that have not yet been confirmed, after watching a report from the exhibition, a whole brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine went to their huts, shaved their bloomers ...
  5. +7
    7 September 2022 06: 12
    In theory, smear at least the fifth contact. And let it still be in warehouses. The machine is easy to learn, easy to repair. Good mobilization tank.
  6. +15
    7 September 2022 06: 27
    I didn't understand. Those. after the T-62, did domestic tank building go the wrong way? And the T-72, T-90, T-80 turned out to be not "more adapted to the special operation" than the T-62?
    1. +5
      7 September 2022 07: 53
      Don't compare spherical horses in a vacuum.
      There is a T-62 with 65gv optics, with standard armor. T-72, especially with the letter B, is naturally better. But if you take the T-62 of the early eighties, with updated optics, with enhanced armor. And he suddenly turns out to be better than the T-72 of the early series.

      In the US Army, tankers initially cursed at Abrams, who had an initial miserable SLA in relation to the latest modifications of the M-60.
      1. +7
        7 September 2022 09: 26
        So why didn't they modernize the t-72 "early series" and instead modernize the t-62?
        1. +4
          7 September 2022 09: 34
          So why didn't they modernize the t-72 "early series" and instead modernize the t-62?

          Well, here one logical conclusion suggests itself - they ran out, what rotted in storage, what was sold over the hill, what has been left abroad since 91 ...
        2. +2
          7 September 2022 09: 59
          You may have misunderstood what you read. Nobody now welds eyebrows to the T-62, and does not replace the MSA. This was done under the USSR. It’s just that now the most protected equipment is being selected from the BHVT bases, which can be put into operation in a couple of months.
          What is now rolling around the exhibitions is just an idea. For the T-72 of the early series, they also offer a lot of good things. Starting with the replacement of the engine, the FCS, the entire tower, the strengthening of the VLD and other delights + contact 5 / relic. But this is very costly. Below a certain modification, it seems like the T-72B is more expensive to modernize than to make a new tank.
          1. +1
            8 September 2022 05: 33
            I wonder how many T-90M regiments can be built by selling only one yacht of some kind of Abramovich or Potanin?
            1. +1
              8 September 2022 18: 56
              Quote from: danil23518
              I wonder how many T-90M regiments can be built by selling only one yacht of some kind of Abramovich or Potanin?

              And if you also sell Putin’s Scheherazade, then you can immediately stamp Almaty like sausages. But, as they say, do not confuse state wool with your own! (c) They do not confuse. laughing Let me remind you that we have a capital state, which is obliged to serve the interests, first of all, of the Abramovichs and Potanins. There are no other capital states.
              1. -1
                9 September 2022 11: 20
                Abramovich’s yacht “Eclipse” is his most expensive, it costs $1,2 billion. The T-90M tank is about $4,5 million. no need here .. no money, yeah.
        3. 0
          3 February 2023 23: 22
          It's simple, the t-62 is being modernized not at the Uralvagonzavod, but at others that have less competence and equipment.
          Uralvagonzavod is simultaneously modernizing the t-72 to the level of b3 (m) and riveting the t-90.
          In Omsk, the t-80 is being modernized, and at the repair plants, the t-62m.
          It is logical because they have upgrade kits for them.
          They don’t seem to put a barbell, but here is a new sight, new protection, an engine, screens with remote sensing.
    2. +1
      7 September 2022 07: 55
      In comparison with the base T-62, and not with what you listed ..
      1. -2
        7 September 2022 09: 29
        AND? In a special operation, the modernized t-62 turned out to be better than the modernized t-72/80/90? Or are they over?
        1. -1
          7 September 2022 11: 25
          It turned out to be SUFFICIENT for the purposes that it performs in the NWO .. There are no abrams, no leopards and other challengers, and the latest versions. What kind of opponent is this and the decision.
          1. +2
            7 September 2022 12: 51
            I think we need to look at it a little differently. T-72s were added to those T-80/90/62s. That is, not instead of some tanks, but in addition to those that are already fighting.
            1. +2
              7 September 2022 13: 37
              Those. Ukrainians will not use against our "additional" t-62, Polish t-72 and modern anti-tank systems against which the t-62 does not have very bright prospects? How did you manage to reach an agreement?
              1. 0
                7 September 2022 13: 52
                Quote: Foundling
                Those. Ukrainians will not use against our "additional" t-62, Polish t-72 and modern anti-tank systems against which the t-62 does not have very bright prospects? How did you manage to reach an agreement?
                So foolishly you can ruin any technique. The T-62 niche is work in the role of self-propelled guns.
                He was not sent there instead of someone, but in addition.
                1. +3
                  7 September 2022 17: 08
                  Sau??? In what positions and for what purpose? And why for the purposes of self-propelled guns it is impossible to use the self-propelled guns themselves?
                  1. 0
                    7 September 2022 21: 11
                    Quote: Foundling
                    Sau??? In what positions and for what purpose? And why for the purposes of self-propelled guns it is impossible to use the self-propelled guns themselves?
                    In a position where there was only infantry and infantry fighting vehicles, they seconded the T-62, and the soldiers refused it, so they could not find tasks for it ...
                    Fairy tale.
                    1. 0
                      8 September 2022 12: 58
                      Yes, they can find tasks. The crew will be more difficult to convince and motivate. And what are these positions where only infantry and infantry fighting vehicles? At the military registration and enlistment office?
                      1. 0
                        8 September 2022 13: 07
                        Quote: Foundling
                        And what are these positions where only infantry and infantry fighting vehicles? At the military registration and enlistment office?

                        Have you been to war? For example, I was (2 years old, Afghanistan)
                2. 0
                  8 September 2022 08: 44
                  But it’s okay that a tank is not a self-propelled gun ..... a priori .... nonsense - to use a tank as a self-propelled gun, there the sights are not for artillery fire ...
                  1. 0
                    8 September 2022 10: 18
                    Quote from uprun
                    there sights are not for artillery fire ...

                    And in more detail, you can on the sights?
                    Yes, and I would like to know how firing from a tank gun differs from firing from the MT-12 "Rapier" gun, which are used everywhere there.
                    1. +1
                      8 September 2022 13: 11
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      And in more detail, you can on the sights?
                      Yes, I would like to know...
                      It is clear that there are no answers - immediately minus the one who asked the question.
            2. 0
              7 September 2022 20: 22
              T-72s were added to those T-80/90/62s. That is, not instead of some tanks, but in addition to those that are already fighting.
              .
              Each new type of equipment on equipment multiplies the logistical problems.
              1. +2
                7 September 2022 20: 24
                Quote: UAZ 452
                Each new type of equipment on equipment multiplies the logistical problems

                Not "multiple". Better yet, take pity on the ukrov - that's who has a complete zoo, in terms of technology.
                1. -1
                  7 September 2022 20: 38
                  Ukrov expects that they will give more, moreover, for free. That is, the technique lives and is used in the tail and mane either until it is destroyed, or until the resource is broken / exhausted. Then either to Europe for restoration, or (most likely) - to the scrap. And when there is no freebie (and we, alas, do not expect it), such a scheme cannot be working.
                  1. 0
                    7 September 2022 20: 47
                    Quote: UAZ 452
                    Ukrov have a calculation that they will give more

                    If so, then this is a wrong calculation, they get less than they drop out. If you want, count.
            3. +2
              7 September 2022 23: 23
              T-62s appeared because the T-72A, stored in large quantities, turned out to be in a very poor technical condition. They were put into storage worn out. Didn't do any repairs.
              T-62s from storage were more combat-ready.
          2. -3
            7 September 2022 13: 35
            Have you forgotten that we have an OFFENSIVE operation? And he will fight with his cannon against the Polish T-72 and modern anti-tank systems. The rest is fantasy
            1. -1
              7 September 2022 18: 48
              Quote: Foundling
              Have you forgotten that we have an OFFENSIVE operation? And he will fight with his cannon against the Polish T-72 and modern anti-tank systems. The rest is fantasy

              First, the T-62 is operated not in the linear units of the Russian Army, but in the units of the LPR, DPR and the National Guard.
              Second, mobilization took place in the republics. Some of the fighters were still studying at the "Grandfathers", including graduates of the military departments of universities. The reality is that it is easier to use their skills and competencies on the T-62 than to retrain them.
              Thirdly, after the break with the Soviet Union, the Chinese consistently modernized the first post-war generation. The revolution did not work out, but the tanks turned out to be not bad enough. At a minimum, they are not afraid to "cross swords" with our T-90s and T-72s in tank biathlon.
              1. +1
                7 September 2022 19: 01
                Something I didn’t see real duels in tank biathlon. Would you climb into the t-62 or t72/80/90 yourself? That is it. Fighters of the LNR / DNR? Well, yes. Then you can
                1. -1
                  7 September 2022 20: 12
                  Quote: Foundling
                  Something I didn’t see real duels in tank biathlon. Would you climb into the t-62 or t72/80/90 yourself? That is it. Fighters of the LNR / DNR? Well, yes. Then you can

                  My dear, not everything is known in comparison! If I had done military service on the T-62, then during mobilization I chose the opportunity to fight on the T-62.
                  In the second Chechen company, 62 also took part. They modernized them so that Mama do not cry. Too bad I don't have pictures of those mountain monsters! By the way, the same Budanov fought on the T-62! As a combat vehicle, it is more stable in a number of indicators than 64. And Vveshniki did not sting them. They even welded platforms with SPAAG above the engine compartment. He did not disregard the "grandfathers" of UVZ, which he threw gratings, DZ.
                  1. 0
                    8 September 2022 15: 29
                    What does the experience of the Chechen campaign have to do with it? How can you compare the current combined-arms battle, with an organized multi-level enemy fire system, with what was there?)) What is the average saturation density of militants' positions with anti-tank weapons, artillery there, and what is it here?
                2. -2
                  8 September 2022 06: 00
                  Are there already soldiers of the same kind in the Russian Guard?
              2. -1
                8 September 2022 15: 34
                Just explain how, at the moment of a particular battle or a certain situation, the senior commander will have to make a decision, he has some kind of unit “at hand”, equipped with T62, and you need to conduct a database, and the enemy is in front of him, only for T72 or T90 according to teeth ....?))) Like Kartsev, we play here, we don’t play here)))) It seems, like there is a tank unit, but, trochs of the "wrong system")))
  7. +8
    7 September 2022 06: 33
    I honestly thought that the Ukrainians would rather start using the old equipment. Demilitarize something like them
    1. +4
      7 September 2022 08: 04
      So their technique is already over. Look at the Kherson counteroffensive, only Polish tanks. Literally not a single Ukrainian was noticed there
      1. +3
        7 September 2022 09: 30
        Those. after the destruction of storage bases and tr, do Poland and Ukraine have more Soviet-style tanks than ours?
        1. -4
          7 September 2022 09: 41
          Of course not. You apparently don't understand. Russia still has a lot of T-72, T-80 tanks of various modifications. UVZ also sends T-90M to the troops every few months. The Russian Federation has enough of its own tanks. The T-62 was given to volunteers, and in battles they were not seen with electric current, unlike newer ones. And Ukraine has already lost almost all tank troops. And they won’t even be able to use junk, because they cut all the T-62s. There are only T-55s, but it doesn't even make sense to use them. Therefore, they now use only Polish tanks, which will run out just as soon. So we are fine with tanks, even using the T-62, newer tanks are constant heroes of hostilities. Which do not end as quickly as from the Ukrainian side
    2. +2
      7 September 2022 08: 45
      And they have nothing to use. What old technology?
      T-54/55 - about a hundred went from the USSR, some went to prototypes and ARVs. Perhaps this monster will go into battle for KhTZ if everything goes badly for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kharkov direction. Made for a pen in the mid-00s for a competition. Perhaps they have not yet been irrevocably dismantled or even handed over to the museum (still the wildest 55 with a unique horizontal AZ in a niche and a proprietary Kharkov engine of 850 forces with a gun).


      T-62 - 300 pieces from the USSR, most of them sold out under Kuchma in whole or in spare parts. The hulls are rusting at the Lvov and Zhytomyr plants.

      And then T-64-72-80. These are the only tanks that have repairs and supplies. For the T-55/62 has not had its own repair facilities for a long time.

      In the west, you can scrape together a T-55, but in a state of rusty trash without maintenance. If they send this, then rather M-60A3 from the Sierra Nevada. But more likely, by the winter they will decide to send MBTs of the 90s of the Leo2A4 / Abrams level from the time of the Storm from the Sierra Nevada.
      1. 0
        7 September 2022 09: 17
        Only the Greeks have a sane amount of Leo2A4. Will the Popandupols agree to remain without a tank next to the Sultan?
        But the Abrams from storage, well, I don’t know. Even though there is news on CNN that an Abrams tank company was burned near New York. So the Vietnamese flashbacks went, with M113 burning in the forests.
        From my sofa it seems that they won't.
        1. +4
          7 September 2022 12: 17
          Well, we are talking more about 3-4 TB - they can scrape it together even now (Swiss Leo2A4 - which you just need to re-equip and repair, Spanish, well, by the bottom of the barrel, that's 120-140 tanks and scored). The M60A3 is generally free in fact and the repair base on them still remains (because the tank is alive all over the world). With Leo1 in this respect it will be more difficult by the way.
  8. +2
    7 September 2022 06: 36
    A tank with new devices will most likely be one for several vehicles. Hence, their number will not be big. The bulk of the T-6M will be in the version without this mast, but with a new hitch on the hull.

    This is an expensive business, optoelectronic equipment. So far we are not pulling the production of a large number: the capacities for the electronic element base are weak. Over time, we hope to improve in this segment of industrial production.
  9. +10
    7 September 2022 06: 38
    At exhibitions, we are ahead of the rest. Yes, and the T-62s went into action, apparently due to the fact that the T-72s abandoned in the open for storage came into a state of little use for combat operations, for which thanks to Serdyukov and his successor Shoigu.
    1. +4
      7 September 2022 08: 00
      If you read thematic resources, then two years ago it was written there that the number
      T-72 suitable for conversion into B3 at BKhVT tends to zero. Therefore, they began to pull out the T-80 of the latest series from conservation.
      The required number of new vehicles to complete existing parts, even without taking into account losses / breakdowns in the NWO, the tank city will be able to do only in five years.
      T-62 went to the republican and volunteer units. How much can this be repeated? They are not in combat units of the RF Armed Forces.
      1. +5
        7 September 2022 08: 17
        And that our enemies are fighting in republican and volunteer units? Or can the T-62M be somehow better than even the T-72A, of which there are thousands in storage on paper?
        1. +1
          7 September 2022 08: 45
          Suddenly yes. Early T-72s had a simple cast turret. Their VLD protection is comparable. The T-62M has a better turret. And the SLA is much worse than that of the latest modifications of the T-62, which received, among other things, the TOUR.
          Therefore, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is acting absolutely correctly. Those T-72Bs that have not yet been dragged away for modernization are in need of expensive repairs.
          T-72A, if they go to war, then what kind of bantustan thread. And there they are, with AZ and puff VLD, they will be doomsday machines.
          1. +7
            7 September 2022 10: 52
            You don’t tell fairy tales, only on the first series of the T-72 the towers were cast, on the T-72A, and even more so on the T-72AV, not to mention B, the armor is much better than on the T-64M, and on B there is also Contact. And the chances of surviving in a battle against the T-72M for the crew on the T-72AV, not to mention the T-72B, are much higher than on the antediluvian T-64M with a 100mm cannon and a loader in the crew
            1. -3
              7 September 2022 11: 05
              Quote: ramzay21
              T-64M with 100mm gun and loader in the crew

              What kind of animal is this, explain ...
              1. +2
                7 September 2022 13: 00
                Quote: Repellent
                Quote: ramzay21
                T-64M with 100mm gun and loader in the crew

                What kind of animal is this, explain ...

                I won’t say anything about the T-64M, but a 100mm rifled gun was installed on the T-64.

                The predecessor of the serial main tank T-64 was the "Object 430". Work on it began in the late 50s, and in 1957 the first experimental model appeared:
                it was equipped with a 100-mm rifled gun D-54TS with an ammunition load of 50 unitary rounds.

                In 1964, a model was developed, testing and refinement of which continued until it was adopted in 1967. The tank, called the T-64, was armed with a 115-mm smooth-bore D-68 cannon, the ammunition of which consisted of 40 separate-loading shots with a partially burning sleeve.

                In 1969, the production of a modernized tank began, which in 1973 received the name T-64A.
                differed from the T-64 by installing a 125 mm 2A26 smoothbore gun, which caused changes in the design of the autoloader, rangefinder sight and stabilizer.
      2. +9
        7 September 2022 10: 40
        And volunteer units are not people?
        1. -7
          7 September 2022 10: 52
          The Ministry of Defense gave them the most protected tank, with the best SLA of those that are massively available at the BKhVT bases. What's wrong?
          By the way, newly formed volunteer units receive T-90M and BMP-3.
          1. -1
            7 September 2022 13: 32
            So I ask, are there no modernized t72/80/90 for volunteers? Remind me what kind of gun the t-62 has and what is the probability of its survival in a duel with a Polish t-72, for example? In your opinion, is this the best thing that can be used in a modern offensive special operation? Are you seriously?
            1. +2
              7 September 2022 14: 01
              Quote: Foundling
              Remind me what kind of gun the t-62 has and what is the probability of its survival in a duel with a Polish t-72, for example?
              And what is the probability of our BMP-1 surviving if we send it against a Polish tank? and if the Ural truck is against a Polish tank?
              1. -3
                7 September 2022 18: 56
                Do you plan to use tanks as a Truck? Original!
    2. +6
      7 September 2022 09: 37
      Quote: ramzay21
      At exhibitions, we are ahead of the rest. Yes, and the T-62s went into action, apparently due to the fact that the T-72s abandoned in the open for storage came into a state of little use for combat operations, for which thanks to Serdyukov and his successor Shoigu.

      Come on, without justifying the two indicated military figures, I will say that the predecessors in relation to the BKhVT were not much different. I remember in the early 90s they came to shooting competitions in the Novosibirsk region and then I was amazed by the spectacle of thousands of tanks in the open air with crossed barrels. And I don’t even want to talk about the safety of weapons and military equipment from those times, the military equipment was stolen, but I don’t even want to talk about the DH.
    3. -1
      8 September 2022 08: 49
      Judging by the conclusion, the T-62s were stored in "greenhouse conditions" ...... unlike the T-72? This type of AKM is stored on the street, and PPSh in covered warehouses .....
  10. +1
    7 September 2022 07: 36
    If we move away from talking about the need ...

    ... then the conclusions suggest themselves impartial:
    - Instead of being engaged in the production of new samples using combat experience and modern technologies and developments, we continue the rigmarole with patching holes with old models. Based on this, I would like to ask why the modernization of the Volga and Chaika did not suit?
    - How long will all this hinged modernization, protruding beyond the contours of the armor, last in a real battle?
    - What influences the search for ideas for modernization: the lack of capacities for the production of equipment that meets modern requirements, or the lack of brains and real "Koshkins", "Kotins" and "Shashmurins"?
    1. +9
      7 September 2022 08: 22
      What influences the search for ideas for modernization: the lack of capacities for the production of equipment that meets modern requirements, or the lack of brains and real "Koshkins", "Kotins" and "Shashmurins"?

      Our government does not need either the Koshkins or the Tupolevs, simply because against their background, such as the Manturovs and Serdyukovs will look like who they are.
    2. +2
      7 September 2022 11: 26
      You go through patents on BTT and other VT registered in the Russian Federation over the years, and you will find this mast there. The question, as always, is the introduction into production and into the troops. So, everything is in order with the brains in this direction. And then there are other "brains."
      1. -1
        7 September 2022 23: 47
        No one argues that talented people in our country have always been and will be, but our country becomes great when exactly such people are put in leadership positions and people are promoted only by their business qualities.
        And now compare Manturov and Beria, Stalin and Putin, and it will immediately become clear why then Ilyushin's design bureau was led by Ilyushin, and now this design bureau can be led by the son of another mediocrity that has surfaced in power with a completely predictable result.
  11. -7
    7 September 2022 08: 49
    I would suggest a radical modernization of all Russian tanks with one feature invented by me (since I haven’t seen or read anything like this anywhere) feature, I understand that now everyone will laugh and criticize and point out cons, but I’m still sure that this feature will put everything Russian tanks to a new level. I propose to fill the fighting compartment with water. Say nonsense, but let's see what benefits it can give. 1- the crew can be dressed in spacesuits with a high level of protection, a person in the water can carry a weight of 100 or more kilograms without feeling it, and note without any exoskeletons, that is, the crew will be reliably protected from any secondary fragments, 2- water in the department it will eliminate the main problem of Russian tanks, ignition and explosion of ammunition, the tank will become super-non-combustible, 3 - water, due to its density, by itself reduces the speed of secondary fragments and the effect of the remnants of the cumulative jet, which will reduce equipment damage, 4 - the work of the loader will be facilitated (for the t-62) the shells will simply stop weighing anything, of course the tank will require some refinement, and spacesuits for the crew will also be needed, but this is not such a difficult engineering task ....
    1. -1
      7 September 2022 10: 13
      of course the tank will require some refinement

      Here, dwell on this in more detail and you will understand the unfeasibility of your idea.
      1. -1
        7 September 2022 19: 13
        what is not realizable? changes affect the loading system, it is necessary to provide a sealed tray in which the projectile is placed, then the water is pumped out and the projectile is sent, the incredible complexity is directly accessible only to furry men from Alpha Centauri and Atlanteans, to make nodes capable of working in water, to seal the case from the inside so that water does not pour out, to make spacesuits for the crew, if we don’t already know how to do this, well then yes, there’s no point in talking further ...
        1. -1
          8 September 2022 08: 54
          Gee-gee-gee
          Ha ha ha
          Boo ha-ha-ha
          Well, how much do you have to drink to think of such an idea!??!?!!?
          You need to perform at the comedy competition !!!!!
        2. -1
          8 September 2022 09: 18
          Just remember that water is an incompressible liquid. And then, that a tank gun has a rollback when firing. This is just one of the many reasons why your ideas are fabulous to say the least.
          1. -1
            8 September 2022 18: 50
            and who said that the tank should be filled to capacity, you can leave a free gap of ten centimeters between the roof and the water level, so far I have not heard a single intelligible argument why the idea is not feasible, I gave intelligible arguments FOR - this is an increase in the survivability of the crew and equipment , and so far not a single argument against, except for miserable ridicule that very clearly characterizes its authors ....
            1. 0
              9 September 2022 09: 45
              and who said that the tank should be filled to capacity,

              So you didn’t say anything at all in terms of engineering, so you have to proceed from what is. This is the first. And the second - if the tank is not "flooded to the eyeballs", then another property of water, as a mass carrier, will manifest itself an order of magnitude stronger - inertia. Can you imagine what it is and how it will affect the work?
              And, I repeat, we are still revolving around only one of the many problems. I'm telling you based on my experience, both as an engineer and as a tank commander.
              I gave intelligible arguments FOR - this is an increase in the survivability of the crew and equipment

              What you propose was tested in a sane version from an engineering and operational point of view by the Americans with their "wet" stacking racks. This time.
              There will be no increase in survivability in existing tanks, you wrote about modernization, not a new tank. Look at the layout and location of the fuel tanks, piping and projectiles. Gunpowder does not need oxygen for combustion, if a jet has flown into the charge, it will set it on fire, that volume of combustion products in the armored space sealed by you will create excess pressure that is guaranteed to kill the crew. Breakage of the oil or fuel line and the ingress of oil or fuel will lead to the formation of an emulsion and, as a result, the "blindness" of the tank. Getting into the MTO will still lead to a fire and the tank will burn. Leaving a tank without a "spacesuit" is hard, but it will be unrealistic in it (as well as getting into this tank outside of combat). The failure of the engine or generator will stop the compressor of the life support system of the suit and the crew will simply suffocate. Offhand, I can give you a dozen more purely operational problems, without even switching to engineering ones.
              1. -1
                9 September 2022 18: 29
                1-I don’t understand how the inertia of water can seriously affect the work, water carriers and tankers carry liquids without any problems, why should this create some inconvenience for a 50 ton colossus
                2 - wet ammunition rack, as far as I know, has proven itself well, gunpowder really doesn’t need oxygen, but this doesn’t mean that it can’t be extinguished, wet gunpowder doesn’t burn, otherwise there would be no fire extinguishing systems in the tank, as for explosives in shells, it can detonate, or maybe not detonate, in any case, water will not contribute to detonation, and if you look at the video of hitting tanks from ATGMs, you can very rarely observe an instantaneous explosion, most often a fire follows first, sometimes even the crew manages to get out and only then follows a powerful detonation , in the presence of water this will not happen, in addition, water, due to its density, will be able, on the one hand, to reduce the speed and cone of expansion of fragments and their temperature, on the other hand, an additional deceleration factor for the cumulative jet, for example, a "javelin" will have to break through the roof of the tank and more than one meters of water before reaching the autoloader and this is if the angle is 90 degrees, with an increase in the angle the thicknessthe water layer increases
                3-suits can be made with the possibility of an emergency leaving the tank, when the armor elements are quickly disconnected from the main suit, the weight of which can be quite acceptable for wearing in the air .....
                1. -1
                  12 September 2022 09: 44
                  1-I don’t understand how the inertia of water can seriously affect the work, water carriers and tankers carry liquids without any problems, why should this create some inconvenience for a 50 ton colossus

                  Water carriers and tankers were originally designed to carry liquids. Both in terms of loads on the chassis, and in terms of structural elements designed to reduce the effects of that very inertia - the space inside the tank is divided into sections by breakwater shields, etc.
                  You add several tons to the mass of the tank without changing the chassis. This time. The tank turns the tower, and together with the tower the whole mass of water. How do you think the turret will react to this? And when the drum of the loading mechanism starts to rotate, how will the crew react to it, being in the "washing machine"? And how will he react to braking from a speed of 40 km / h to 20 km / h, when a force of 5-6 kN acts on it from the side of the water?
                  wet ammunition rack, as far as I know, has proven itself well

                  You don't know well. She didn't prove herself. Therefore, they refused it. Just when cumulative means became the basis of VET.
                  wet powder does not burn, otherwise there would be no fire extinguishing systems in the tank

                  1) The problem is that the gunpowder, when the pestle flies into it, is not wet, and will not become wet, since the powder tubes will be isolated from the water by the expanding combustion products flowing through the penetration site.
                  2) The fire extinguishing system in tanks does not "wet" gunpowder, but displaces oxygen from the combustion zone - it is not water, but gas. Moreover, for example, in Abrams, the sensors are configured so as not to respond to the temperature of the cumulative jet.
                  in addition, due to its density, water will be able, on the one hand, to reduce the speed and cone of expansion of fragments and their temperature, on the other hand, an additional factor of deceleration of the cumulative jet

                  Due to its density, it in itself is a striking factor for the crew.
                  3-suits can be made with the possibility of an emergency exit of the tank, when the armor elements are quickly disconnected from the main suit

                  You have no idea what a tank is, just write like that.
                  1. 0
                    15 September 2022 21: 45
                    arguments are mostly contrived
                    the rotation of the autoloader is incomparable with the speed of rotation of the drum of the washing machine, the additional mass of water will of course affect both the chassis and the rotation of the turret, but taking into account the fact that the tank is already hung from all sides either with bars or with additional armor, or with dynamic protection, the additional mass from water is not is something extraordinary in this regard, the gunpowder in the charge does not ignite instantly, a fragment is not a primer for you and this can be seen from the way the tanks burn, the flame flares up quickly but not instantly and the shot charge in the water will not ignite from a fragment or a cumulative jet, density water will not affect the crew as a damaging factor in any way, since a very small substance of the cumulative jet gets into the reserved space and even its speed will not play any role here, I did not say that the spacesuits should be like those of an astronaut, it should be a protective dry suit and a helmet, armored elements are attached to the surface on special locks, which in an accident in a different situation, they are disconnected from the spacesuit, it is possible to expand the hatches in the tank, but I didn’t say that the tank should not be finalized, of course it should, my main argument was to increase survivability, for which everything was started, for Russian lighter tanks this is an important aspect, this problem is like shows CBO to solve and failed ...
                    1. 0
                      16 September 2022 17: 28
                      arguments are mostly contrived

                      This is ridiculous to hear from a person who has not provided calculation and graphic materials that substantiate his verbal fantasies.
                      the rotation of the automatic loader is incomparable with the speed of rotation of the drum of the washing machine

                      Instead of comparing the angular velocities, compare the forces that involve the fluid layers in motion.
                      Here is the AZ transporter

                      The cassette is highlighted in the rectangle. Like this

                      It contains a charge and a projectile. She is shown alone in the first picture, but in fact there are 22 of them (on the t-72). And when they are all installed, even outwardly the drum begins to resemble the impeller of a radial turbine (of those that are at hydroelectric power plants). Cassettes will play the role of blades that capture liquid, while the drum of a washing machine has a much less pronounced surface relief.
                      but taking into account the fact that the tank is already hung from all sides either with gratings, or with additional armor, or with dynamic protection, the additional mass from water is not something extraordinary

                      Yeah, and you added a lot of water to all this - nothing extraordinary. Not to mention that you again do not take into account that the liquid, unlike solid fixed objects, creates a dynamically variable load on the supporting surfaces.
                      gunpowder in the charge does not ignite instantly

                      What does it mean? The whole mass of gunpowder naturally does not ignite instantly, but the initial initiation is instantaneous.
                      you can see by how the tanks are burning, the flame flares up quickly but not instantly

                      1) you do not know how the ignition process and the causes of initiation went on in your examples
                      2) you are guided by the visual effect of an open flame, ignoring in my message that the key is the volume of combustion products (which will create a deadly pressure jump in a space filled with water).
                      charge of a shot, from a fragment or cumulative jet will not ignite

                      1) it has already been written to you that the Americans refused wet laying precisely because it did not protect against godfather ammunition.
                      2) if the temperature of the pestle does not fall below 300 degrees, then the gunpowder will be ignited.
                      the density of water will not affect the crew as a damaging factor in any way, since a very insignificant mass of the substance of the cumulative jet enters the reserved space and even its speed will not play any role here,

                      Analyze the formula for pressure in the front of a shock wave and you can understand the dependence on the density of the medium. To disable your "water" tank, you do not need OBPS or KS, just a gap in the armor of the OFS (not to mention the BrF).
                      it should be a protective dry suit and a helmet, armored elements are attached to the surface on special locks, which are disconnected from the suit in an emergency

                      The standard for occupying or leaving the tank crew is 11 seconds. And you have to put on your wetsuits, take your seats in the car, attach the helmet, start the air supply system, connect the air supply system, make sure that there is continuity, then start filling with water, which requires third-party personnel and ... CLEAN water. How long will it take?
                      But do not tell me what to do if, out of need, I wanted to and I need to leave the tank for a minute?
                      And don’t tell me how to perform routine operations in a tank filled with water, such as bleeding air from the fuel system through a valve at the driver’s, or replacing a damaged observation device at the driver’s or commander’s, and this is done from inside the car so as not to fall under enemy fire , or how to replace fuse-links that tend to burn out with enviable constancy? And the fact that in a diving helmet it will not be possible to use observation devices, nothing? And the fact that in the water a person spends much more effort on movement, you forgot or did not know? And how will you protect the crew from hypo- or hyperthermia, since the thermal conductivity of water is 23 times higher than the thermal conductivity of air? And how will you deal with freezing of internal surfaces in winter between after draining the water and before filling?
                      I didn’t say that the tank should not be finalized, of course it should

                      Do not convert existing tanks to "water". This time. The "water" tank is deadly for the crew in a combat situation and is not functional. This is two.
                      If you persist, come with blueprints, not chatter.
    2. +5
      7 September 2022 10: 50
      Better than alcohol!
    3. +4
      7 September 2022 13: 31
      Do you not take into account the hydrodynamic impact after breaking through the armor? One way to open a safe is to fill it with water and place a small charge inside.
      1. -3
        7 September 2022 19: 21
        I also thought about this, I think only calculations and experiments can check how strong its effect will be, but still it is worth noting that the explosion does not occur inside the tank, but outside, only a small part of the explosion products or fragments of the sub-caliber core get inside, there is a video where shooting at a person from a machine gun in a pool in order to assess how safe it is to stand in the water, and so there a person stands without protection and despite the fact that the shot occurs very close, there is no impact from the shock wave, the tank, like the pool, is not a glass jar, especially the crew will be in protective suits and the equipment itself is strong enough to survive a short-term pressure surge, all the more I repeat the explosion does not happen inside the tank, but outside ....
    4. 0
      8 September 2022 08: 57
      Campaign "a real tanker" ......, I have been in a tank more than once, but it reminds me more of a submariner ....., maybe according to this principle our nuclear submarine fleet can also be modernized ... Honestly, I haven’t read more nonsense .. ..
      1. -1
        8 September 2022 18: 53
        and intelligible arguments AGAINST will be? Or again miserable unsubstantiated criticism?
        "From the connection of the cabman and the talkative laundress
        A nondescript cub as a result flowed out
        The boy is not garbage, you can’t take it out in a wheelbarrow
        Mother cried and called him "Critic"
        V. Mayakovsky.
  12. +1
    7 September 2022 10: 49
    I still don't understand. The old, albeit modernized, T-62s are probably justified to use:
    1. The upgraded t-72/80/90s have run out, so it is logical to use the upgraded t-62s prepared for sale in Asia or Africa who do not have money for modern tanks.
    2. If they upgraded the t-62 for themselves, then either the t72/80/90 turned out to be less tenacious and effective, which is unlikely, or there is simply no money.
    3. Whatever MSA is stuffed into the t-62, we do not forget what kind of gun it has. And what is the probability of hitting an enemy t-72 from it at a detection distance.
    Something doesn't fit
    1. -3
      7 September 2022 11: 26
      The ancient T-62 has a pretty decent cannon, and given the lack of restrictions on the length of the ammunition, it is also adapted for long uranium-core projectiles that can break through the Abrams armor.
      1. +1
        8 September 2022 09: 02
        He smiled, there were no restrictions on the length of the ammunition ....., such as the breech is dimensionless .... at least shove the iskander, if only he climbed into the tower .... Also from the "real tanker" series ....., well, not I’m a pilot, I didn’t sit in the cockpit of a flyer, I don’t climb with ideas for modernization, but here ....
        1. 0
          8 September 2022 12: 56
          And in which direction did you smile? The length of the uranium core is critical for the armor penetration of the projectile.
          1. 0
            8 September 2022 13: 16
            The length of the BOPS core is one of the criteria for armor penetration, and there are many of them.
          2. -1
            8 September 2022 15: 24
            For those who are not in the tank ..... given the lack of restrictions on the length of the ammunition, judging by the logic, if there is a torpedo of a suitable caliber, can it be loaded?
    2. +1
      8 September 2022 00: 20
      You have already been told and written 100 times: they are not supposed to be directly opposed to enemy tanks. Infantry support, shelling of fortifications, etc. The T-62 is clearly better than armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles can support infantry. Yes, and it is faster and easier to train people under it.
      1. -1
        8 September 2022 13: 02
        Does the enemy know about it? Did you forget to tell him about it? I present a picture of how the Polish t-72s go around the t-62s and the anti-tank guns bypass them. the beauty
        1. -1
          8 September 2022 19: 13
          And why should they meet often if the T-62 is not put in the main areas, if only in support of more or less modern MBT? We also have infantry fighting vehicles, but no one puts them against the Polish T-72, but only in reinforcement. And against actual anti-tank systems to the side, no tank can resist.
          1. 0
            8 September 2022 19: 54
            If there are "more or less modern MBTs" then why the hell is there a T-62? You just need to add "more or less modern MBT"
            1. -1
              9 September 2022 01: 06
              They add what they can add quickly. And if you don’t fight with other tanks, then they shoot painfully and are afraid of little orc, unlike infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.
              1. 0
                9 September 2022 07: 51
                So infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers must be used for the tasks for which they were created. Why put them ahead of the tanks? Or use without the necessary artillery preparation?
                1. -1
                  9 September 2022 11: 52
                  So the T-62 will be used as armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, but with a larger caliber.
    3. +1
      8 September 2022 12: 26
      Most likely, it is supposed to be used as a long-range self-propelled guns. A rifled accurate gun and a mast are proof of this. Moreover, for a wide range of purposes, and not anti-tank. Type of large-caliber sniper rifle. He hid in the bushes or behind a hillock, extended the mast and looked out for the target, saw, rode out, fired and again into cover.
      1. 0
        8 September 2022 13: 12
        Where he has a rifled gun, a 115 mm smoothbore gun.
  13. +3
    7 September 2022 12: 05
    The only thing left is to start large-scale modernization of the T-62. There are very big doubts about this.
  14. -1
    7 September 2022 12: 22
    Soon the T-55 will also be reactivated, instead of the T-90MS and Armat.
  15. +3
    7 September 2022 13: 32
    They say "there is fish for fishlessness and cancer", well, the T-62 tank is where there will be none or there will be few - on secondary sectors of the front. The very idea of ​​​​an endless resuscitation of the relics of a bygone civilization does not excite me at all, but the fact that there is some kind of temporary solution that can reduce losses and increase efficiency in the conditions of its need "here and now" is certainly good. But whether there will be funds and industrial capacities to equip the T-62 with this TIMELY and MASSIVELY is a less unambiguous question. It remains to be hoped..
    1. 0
      7 September 2022 13: 41
      Why t-62: in the rear? And on the "secondary sectors of the front" will "secondary" tanks fight? The enemy will be at best on the T-64 and Polish T-72, if anything.
      1. 0
        8 September 2022 13: 13
        And they will tear the T-62 tank like Tuzik a rag.
      2. 0
        8 September 2022 22: 38
        And on the "secondary sectors of the front" they will fight, "secondary"
        Yep, you're right. These "secondary" areas will be the main blows of the enemy. As usual.
    2. -1
      8 September 2022 22: 39
      It remains to be hoped..
      You don't have to be so optimistic. Still worse.
  16. 0
    7 September 2022 14: 55
    It turned out to be a pretty good upgrade. It is a tank in the original sense. Heavily armored infantry support platform. Relatively budget. It is clear that advanced multispectral optics is not cheap. But there is nothing superfluous and this will allow you not to invest heavily in modernization. And relative cheapness is almost synonymous with mass production. It is better to have a tank, if not modern, but quite suitable for "work", than not to have it.
  17. +2
    7 September 2022 17: 21
    Such a panoramic sight is needed on the T-72B3.
  18. 0
    7 September 2022 18: 11
    It is a fully stabilized unit, movable vertically and horizontally, mounted on a retractable mast in the rear of the tower.

    To put it mildly, the blue color of the head of this complex causes astonishment. belay What is the purpose of this "tuning"? So that the enemy immediately understands what kind of pepelats is in front of him? lol In general, we have enough equipment where TPKs are allowed, or the missiles themselves differ in color from the color of military vehicles - these are S-300, 400 on which TPKs are gray-white, or Buki with TPKs of the same color, or missiles with a red head. .. . I would like to ask the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - what is this, know-how in the matter of camouflaging equipment? wassat
    1. +1
      8 September 2022 08: 30
      Disguise against the sky :-)
  19. -3
    7 September 2022 18: 45
    Comments except disgust do not cause anything, smaller hamsters.
  20. +1
    7 September 2022 20: 19
    Let's take the T34 off the pedestals.
  21. +2
    7 September 2022 23: 08
    -Do you send such tanks to the front?
    No, we're just showing.
    -Beautiful.
  22. 0
    8 September 2022 01: 56
    https://ucarecdn.com/01a5e377-ffae-4c52-9adb-4fe6f2d689d5/
  23. -1
    8 September 2022 19: 05
    Well, where is the armata?
    1. -1
      8 September 2022 22: 36
      Well, where is the armata?
      Where it's supposed to be! On the parade!
  24. 0
    8 September 2022 19: 45
    They will most likely be used as artillery support self-propelled guns - protection is needed primarily from ATGMs. It is possible, of course, to scald the tower with gratings from all sides, and hang the DZ as on the sides - but this is more expensive and will add a lot of weight.
  25. 0
    8 September 2022 22: 36
    Great review! I wonder how many t-34-85 survived? And how are they upgraded?
  26. 0
    11 September 2022 12: 42
    The car is good, but the gun and the robot must be put in a new one, 125mm, but if it's fast, then it's fine.
  27. -2
    12 September 2022 21: 43
    The main thing is to show more at exhibitions and wag your tongue about what weapons we can make. And it may not come to the point at all. It is necessary to make and fill the troops, and not arrange exhibitions
    1. 0
      18 October 2022 16: 00
      It depends on whose point of view. For those who "master the allocated funds in full", exhibitions and reviews are certainly important
  28. 0
    12 October 2022 17: 34
    The real reason for the use of these devices is still interesting. There are a lot of comments here about how well they modernized them, they hung a teplok, etc. And now attention, the question: who of the newly mobilized wants to sit in them? Most likely they all served on the T72-80. How about after them? It is clear that the LDNR is fighting them out of desperation. Are there really no other tanks? And if there is, then why don't we feel sorry for our fighters? Or is the "economic component" more important? Can someone explain the real reason for using these tanks?
    1. 0
      20 November 2022 18: 09
      I can assume that the epic with the modernization of the T-72 was carried out like this.
      Worn components and assemblies for the upgraded tank were taken from the tanks in storage.
      And it turned out according to the documents that there are thousands of T-72s in storage, but in fact they are with a shortage of components.
  29. -1
    15 October 2022 17: 31
    More tanks, good and different. Especially if from storage. Repair, modernization and forward to Bazuluk!
  30. 0
    18 October 2022 15: 58
    In the early 2000s, I saw a lot of tanks in the open air in Buryatia near the border. When troops were withdrawn from Mongolia in the 90s, they were abandoned there and no longer approached them. They stood in rows. A fallen rotten wooden fence and here and there a sentry with a cigarette
  31. 0
    2 November 2022 14: 27
    Interestingly, the T-10s are still there? It would be nice if so..
  32. -1
    19 November 2022 15: 29
    Put a package with Lancets behind the tower, let the loader steer them and get a new combat vehicle. Plus regular UAV. I saw something similar at the Army 2018 called the reconnaissance and fire complex of the tank, though only on the tank model. But the trouble is the beginning. Israel made old M60 tanks carriers of kamikaze drones about 20 years ago and there is nothing to work with. Plus TOURs, which the West does not have. The old man can still serve
  33. -1
    20 November 2022 17: 21
    They are afraid of our old tanks that Berlin took, but what about the new ones?
  34. 0
    20 November 2022 18: 05
    This is not even a minimum for modernization. You also need a good radio station. And complete replacement of worn components and parts.
    And only in this form can the T-62 be used in the NWO.
    And not like now, when these rusty troughs break every 5 minutes.
  35. 0
    20 November 2022 18: 26
    Like any tank, the T-62MV has two great advantages, it is great mobility and great striking power. Russia has 2000 T-62MV tanks going missing. And they could be successfully used for flank counterattacks on the attacking VFU. For oncoming, frontal attacks, the T-62MV are rather weak, for these purposes you can use newer tanks, but for strikes from the flanks this is what you need. With the help of T-62MV tanks, any VFU offensive can easily turn into a cauldron for Bandera. Let's say Bandera went deep into the location of the defensive positions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for 20 kilometers. The main striking forces are ahead of the VFU, and the flanks and rear of the attacking units of the VFU have significantly worse combat qualities. And on these weak points of the VFU, a hundred T-62M tanks can easily and naturally strike and cut off the attacking units of the VFU from the rest, the main part of the VFU. Well, then everything is according to the worked out scheme. And the mothers of Ukrainian lads who died in vain will cry bitterly and for a long time. Dear mothers from the independent, do not let your children die in vain. Tens of thousands of boys have already died in the fields fighting for Zelensky and Biden in vain. It’s better to give Zelensky a hat and Bandera’s brains, if some of them have brains. And the deed will be done.
  36. 0
    20 November 2022 18: 42
    On the T-62MV, one should still try to somehow place the Kornet ATGM. I really like it, fired from the Cornet and tryndets to any Bandera or NATO tank. It is possible to add mobile armored vehicles with Kornet ATGMs installed on them on the heels of the T-62MV. And when it comes to money, this is a very serious matter. We persuade, we persuade, but the matter does not move. It's time to put up pickets at the State Duma of the Russian Federation with a demand to raise personal income tax on the oligarchs. During the Second World War, US billionaires paid taxes to the state at 50% of their income. And now Biden has already raised the tax on American oligarchs. And our deputies, headed by Volodin, only work more with the language.
  37. 0
    3 February 2023 23: 08
    Unfortunately, since the gun is outdated, there are no modern shells for it ... But I would like, and not so much scrap (it won’t penetrate anything modern anyway), but modern cumulative, shrapnel and possibly armor-piercing high-explosive, with a plate of explosives like on Challengers, it is very effective against medium and light armored vehicles.
    In general, in terms of optics, it is even better than the 2A4 leopard, it is about the same as 2A5. Normal tank in general.