Such different T-62 tanks: what are ours now fighting in a special operation

121
Such different T-62 tanks: what are ours now fighting in a special operation

After February 24, 2022, all topics somehow related to the “sixty-twos” acquired a special, one might say, explosive property. Last year these Tanks began to be removed from storage bases and transferred to active formations on the fronts of a special military operation, which caused a flurry of absolutely polar comments, both among the general public and among military experts.

A storm of emotions followed the announcement of the modernization of hundreds of T-62s at the 103rd BTRZ in Atamanovka, Zabaikalsky Krai. However, it does not subside even today, when these modified machines appeared in the NWO zone. In short, not a tank, but a real trigger that can stir up even the deadest swamp.



Today we will also try to step on this thin ice, but not with the aim of igniting another controversy. It’s just that the T-62s, on which ours are fighting today, are quite a few, both in quantitative terms and in terms of modifications, we’ll talk about them - at least the main ones.

T-62 old model


It somehow happened that when mentioning the T-62 tanks used in the special operation, for some reason, its late Soviet modification under the T-62M index, which today is considered one of the “freshest”, comes to mind by itself. However, this is not the case - most likely, some (very small) number of earlier “sixty-twos” of the sixties and seventies went to the front in the summer of 2022.

These tanks do not need a special introduction: from 1962 to 1975 - with some changes from series to series - almost 20 units were produced. And, despite sending a decent number of cars abroad, they were rightfully considered one of the most massive in the USSR.

For their time, the T-62 looked very good: weight 37 tons with a 580-horsepower diesel engine, a powerful 115-mm smoothbore gun with the ability to fire sub-caliber, cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation shells; steel armor with a thickness of up to 100 mm in the frontal part of the hull and up to 211 mm (in later series, the thicknesses were slightly increased) along the forehead of the tower, and from the sights - an optical one for firing in daylight conditions and a device on an electron-optical converter with active infrared illumination searchlight for night.

One of the old T-62s that fell into the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
One of the old T-62s that fell into the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Nevertheless, by the end of the seventies, the tank began to rapidly become obsolete, since neither the armor nor the sighting system met the modern requirements at that time. The same applied to firepower, although the capabilities of the 115 mm gun were not yet exhausted to the limit.

However, tanks, if we are talking about the domestic Armed Forces, managed to be noted both in Afghanistan and in the Chechen campaign, and the war "08.08.08". And now they are also fighting in a special military operation in Ukraine. However, there are really few of them, which cannot be said about their modernized counterparts.

There are rarities


Speaking about the "sixty-two" of early samples, one cannot fail to mention one tank that appeared in the lenses of television cameras in June last year. We are talking about the T-62 tank with its own name "FartoVy", which many took for some kind of field modification by craftsmen from the republican armed forces.


In fact, it turned out to be almost a museum vehicle "Object 169", the release of which was limited to just a few units towards the end of the seventies and, on the whole, was in the nature of approbation of some design solutions, which were then adopted during the modernization of the T-62 tanks to the "M" standard .

The main differences between the "Object 169" and existing tanks were: launchers for smoke grenades "Tucha" with an arrangement of the T-72A type on the frontal parts of the tower, anti-cumulative side screens and a thermal insulation casing of the gun barrel. There was also a laser rangefinder mounted above the gun, but of course, there was no Volna fire control system that became the hallmark of the T-62M.

One of the early Object 169 tanks
One of the early Object 169 tanks

Later, some of the vehicles, having fallen under the total wave of modernization along with other "sixty-twos", were nevertheless equipped with the "Wave" and the Sheksna guided weapon system. And, as it became clear, at least one of them fell into the special operation zone and lit up near Severodonetsk in June 2022.

To be honest, this particular tank has a place in the museum, since it represents some historical value. But in the troops this concept is treated differently: once it is on the list of combat units, then go ahead. The situation is the same as with the T-80UM-2 - a tank with a deactivated Drozd active defense system, which ended up in the ranks of the Kantemirovskaya division advancing on Ukraine.

T-62M and T-62MV


Tanks T-62M and T-62MV are already real veterans of the special military operation in Ukraine, which are used in large numbers in battles. In general, it is these vehicles that still form the basis of the “sixty-two” fleet, on which ours are fighting against the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The history of the appearance of the T-62M begins in 1981, when in the USSR, at the government level, a decision was made to modernize the accumulated in huge numbers, but shamelessly outdated T-62, bringing the combat characteristics to the level of the T-64 and T-72 tanks of the early series. However, the tank was adopted already in 1983.

Tank T-62M in the NVO zone
Tank T-62M in the NVO zone

According to the degree of their versatility, the events were really large-scale.

So, for example, in terms of improving firepower, the matter was limited not only to the release of new shells, including armor-piercing sub-caliber depleted uranium-based alloys, but also to the introduction of a fire control system (FCS) and providing the ability to fire guided missiles through a cannon barrel.

The SLA in this case is, of course, the “Wave”. It includes a KDT-1-1 (KDT-2) laser rangefinder, a Meteor-M1 stabilizer, a BV-62 ballistic computer, a TSHSM-41U optical sight, and a set of related equipment. And, of course, this is far from the level of some 1G46 T-80U or T-90 tanks, but in semi-automatic mode, corrections for the aiming angle and lateral lead give out that, when compared with the old serial T-62 tanks - heaven and earth.

Tank T-62M in the NVO zone
Tank T-62M in the NVO zone

The 62K9-116 Sheksna complex is responsible for the guided weapons of the T-2M, which includes the 1K13 sight-guidance device, which provides both guidance of anti-tank missiles launched through the cannon barrel at a distance of up to four kilometers, and firing conventional projectiles from a cannon and coaxial her machine gun, but already at night at distances up to 1 meters using an infrared illuminator and up to 200 meters in passive mode.

The armor of tanks in the frontal projection was reinforced by metal-polymer blocks, which increased resistance against sub-caliber projectiles to 320-350 mm and against cumulative ammunition up to 420-450 mm. In addition, the vehicles were equipped with Tucha smoke grenade launchers, on-board anti-cumulative screens, the Soda anti-napalm complex and additional steel sheets on the bottom in the driver’s area to reduce the impact of anti-tank mine explosions.

Among other things, the T-62M received improvements in the undercarriage, more powerful V-55U engines with 620 horsepower, as well as new means of communication.

It is noteworthy that the "sixty-two" were upgraded at repair plants in a rather accelerated mode, so there were not always enough complete sets for their completion, so that some of the machines were deprived of one or another component.


It is also worth noting that there were, let's say, "sub-variants" of the T-62M. Among them, for example, the T-62M-1 with a V-46-5M engine with a capacity of 690 horsepower or the T-62M1 without a guided weapon system. So at the storage bases and, accordingly, in the zone of the special military operation, there could be a whole zoo of tank modifications.

As for the T-62MV, put into service in 1985, their main difference from the usual "emoks" is the dynamic protection "Contact", installed both in the frontal and side projections of the tank. In terms of sights and other things, everything is identical there. And, as in the case of the T-62M, the T-62MV tanks were also made in several versions, including the V-46-5M engine, specimens without missile weapons, and so on.

T-62MV in the zone of special military operation
T-62MV in the zone of special military operation

Of course, the measures taken made it possible to significantly improve the combat capabilities of the T-62, so the vehicles turned out to be quite suitable for participating in modern military operations at that time in secondary directions or conflicts of low intensity. Here you can even say that they could act as, although not the best and with reservations, but still an alternative to some T-72A.

In fact, that is why they were kept in storage for decades already in modern Russia, and some of them were even regularly used. And, as you can see, they were not kept in vain.

T-62MV left
T-62MV left

But times are changing, and a special operation is far from a war with conditional Basmachi, whose arsenal of combat weapons is very limited. Accordingly, the T-62M and T-62MV with their variations, if they nevertheless decided to massively remove them from storage, require adequate improvements, without which their effectiveness, to put it mildly, is not always high.

T-62M and T-62MV model of 2022 are also different


In the fall of 2022, it was announced that the 103rd armored repair plant in Atamanovka, in the Trans-Baikal Territory, was starting a large-scale modernization of the T-62M and T-62MV tanks being removed from storage. On news Everyone reacted differently, but we have what we have.

At least one battalion of Ataman modernization tanks of the 2022 model has already been sent to the zone of a special military operation, and the second is on the way.

There was really a lot of talk about what exactly will be added to the tanks and how they will be modernized. However, there is still no specifics: they simply managed to overhaul or equipped the cars with new means of communication, more powerful engines and other things - it is not clear.

However, there is still some information.

First of all, the T-62M tanks were standardized according to the fire control complex, the basis of which is now by no means the “Volna” - laser rangefinders mounted above the guns are completely removed from the vehicles passing through the plant and armor plugs are put in their place. So it will no longer be possible to fire through an optical sight - it was left in place - with all the necessary amendments produced in a semi-automatic mode.

The 1K13 is also being removed, which served as a night sight for firing from a cannon and a machine gun coaxial with it, as well as a guidance device for tank guided missiles.

Instead, they put a thermal imaging sight-rangefinder 1PN96MT-2, which includes its own ballistic computer. And, I must say, the replacement turned out to be very profitable: unlike the 1K13, it provides a target detection range of two to three kilometers in difficult visibility conditions at night and day, and at the same time it has automation similar to the Wave.

Control panel and display of the thermal imaging sight 1PN96MT-02 to the left of the optical sight
Control panel and display of the thermal imaging sight 1PN96MT-02 to the left of the optical sight

Yes, now tanks are deprived of the ability to fire guided missiles, since the 1PN96MT-2 does not have such functionality. However, their often low efficiency is more than offset by the presence of a thermal imager in the new sight. The exchange is definitely correct.

As for the security of the updated T-62M, there are at least two variations of it.

The first - without the use of any measures for the additional security of the tank. Some refer to these vehicles as a kind of installation or training (for mobilized) batch of tanks modernized in Atamanovka, since the T-62M, despite the new sight, is equipped with the same protection in the form of metal-polymer blocks as their original Soviet version.

T-62M model 2022 without additional dynamic protection
T-62M model 2022 without additional dynamic protection

How many they got to the front is the question.

The second - with lattice screens in the rear of the tower and dynamic protection "Contact", which was installed in the frontal part of the hull over the metal-polymer blocks of additional armor and on the roof of the tower. These T-62M tanks of the 2022 model can already be considered quite serial, since they have already been seen in battles in Ukraine, and their production continues at the 103rd BTRZ.

T-62M model 2022 with additional dynamic protection on the 103rd BTRZ
T-62M model 2022 with additional dynamic protection on the 103rd BTRZ

The idea turned out to be strange: the forehead of the hull was equipped with "reactive armor", and the forehead of the tower, as one of the projections most susceptible to shelling, received nothing in addition, except for standard protection. By the way, we already wrote about the possible reasons for such a “halving” of armor here. here.

At the same time, not only the T-62M tanks, but also the T-62M-1 with the V-46-5M engine, which we talked about above, fall under the modernization at the Atamanovsky plant. So a variety of varieties, even within the same production of military vehicles, is already present.

T-62M model 2022 with additional dynamic protection in the NVO zone
T-62M model 2022 with additional dynamic protection in the NVO zone

The T-62MV is subjected to similar executions: they cut off their “native” laser rangefinders, put a thermal imaging sight and weld anti-cumulative lattice screens in the aft. However, there are no changes in terms of basic protection: the Kontakt dynamic protection is where it should be - and this is actually a big plus, since HEAT weapons, along with mines and artillery, are the greatest threats to tanks in the NWO. Well, in terms of engines, the differences are the same as those of the T-62M.

T-62MV model 2022 on the territory of the 103rd BTRZ
T-62MV model 2022 on the territory of the 103rd BTRZ

T-62M and T-62MV model 2022. Screenshot from the video of the TV channel "Russia-1"
T-62M and T-62MV model 2022. Screenshot from the video of the TV channel "Russia-1"

Conclusions


There are many questions regarding the mass removal of T-62 tanks of various modifications from storage bases and their shipment to the zone of a special military operation. So much controversy around this. But we start from what is already there and what is inevitable.

These tanks began to be transferred to the front a long time ago and, judging by the fact that this was done in an accelerated mode, everything that could drive and fight was taken for mobilization: from the old T-62s of the sixties and seventies to more or less fresh T -62M. Came across, as we see, even museum samples.

After a while, the situation settled down - a project for the modernization of machines accepted for production appeared. However, even within the same release, tanks can vary greatly from each other, both in terms of engines and protection: the T-62M has metal-polymer blocks with DZ blocks on the roof of the turret and the forehead of the hull, while the T-62MV has a total body kit "Contact » without additional armor modules.

Of course, the production of combat vehicles is not a very flexible thing in terms of making changes on the go, but there is hope that someday, given the grandiose plans to modernize the T-62, tanks will still be more or less standardized in most characteristics despite their initial differences within the Soviet releases. This will have an extremely positive impact on their efficiency and on the labor costs of the already exhausted suppliers.
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +24
      21 March 2023 05: 42
      Most importantly, you need to ask yourself: why exactly did they grab to tune the T-62? Indeed, in our storerooms we have a huge number of more modern tanks, the same T-72 for example. The answer is simple, a lot of existing capacities are not functioning. But our valiant "optimizers" forgot about the Atamanovsky tank repair plant in Transbaikalia. That's why we have what we have. Two tank repair plants, the construction of which Mishustin announced back in October, should in principle improve the situation, but when will they start working at full capacity?
      1. +10
        21 March 2023 06: 28
        Two tank repair plants, the construction of which Mishustin announced back in October, should in principle improve the situation, but when will they start working at full capacity?
        At the moment, there are 5 (five) factories for the repair of armored vehicles (this is one of the largest)
        1. +9
          21 March 2023 07: 08
          Just one question. Where did thousands of t-72s go?
          1. +9
            21 March 2023 11: 08
            Quote: Civil
            Where did thousands of t-72s go?

            Do not believe it, they are at the storage bases
            1. 0
              21 March 2023 19: 17
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: Civil
              Where did thousands of t-72s go?

              Do not believe it, they are at the storage bases

              We cannot answer why. I can offer this version - Ukraine will not end the confrontation.
              There may be different scenarios for the development of events. Maybe in this case they cherish more modern T-72s.
          2. +5
            21 March 2023 12: 50
            To Syria. This is a well known fact. In addition, they were brutally cannibalistic.
          3. +23
            21 March 2023 13: 25
            Apparently, the T-72 from storage can be upgraded and put into operation at factories where the production of new equipment is underway. Before Rem. factory in Zab. the region did not reach out for only one reason - nobody needs its land. Other rem. factories, which most likely had both equipment and expertise on the T-72, are most likely now built up with some kind of housing or shopping malls.
          4. 0
            23 March 2023 01: 34
            How is it "where did they go"? ... And what is in our arsenal, and participates in the NWO, not the T-72, or what? ...
          5. 0
            1 September 2023 17: 41
            They have not been taken anywhere, they are molarized by Uralvagonzavod to the level of b3m. Other factories do not have such capabilities. In Omsk, the T-80 is being upgraded to the level of the BVM, and 62s are being upgraded at other plants. No matter how.
      2. 0
        21 March 2023 22: 00
        Quote: Proxima
        why exactly did they grab to tune the T-62?

        And why now what
        1. -1
          22 March 2023 21: 23
          Quote from Digger
          Quote: Proxima
          why exactly did they grab to tune the T-62?

          And why now

          It’s easier, cheaper, faster, full of shells, and there are specialized capacities specifically for them (T-62M). In addition, I suspect that everything that is capable of this will have to be returned to service.
          In addition, the T-72B3M enters the troops much more than the T-62M. They don't talk about the new T-90Ms.
          1. TIR
            0
            April 23 2023 21: 53
            From my city, the tank regiment was completely transferred from the T-72B3M to the T-90M. If there was a shortage in new tanks, I think the regiment was left on their T-72B3M. Moreover, after replacing their old tanks, they went either to the AK LDNR or to mobilized new formations. Since it was tank units from mobiles that we formed
        2. -1
          23 March 2023 01: 36
          And when? In what year were the jojins started? ... All are such "visionaries", and everyone has so much money to modernize old equipment - it’s just amazing :) ...
      3. -1
        22 March 2023 12: 59
        And there are a lot of these tanks, they are not visible at all. Maybe some of those who previously served remained, so they caught up for them.
      4. 0
        14 September 2023 18: 01
        Most importantly, you need to ask yourself: why exactly did you decide to tune the T-62?
        72 have hydraulically controlled automatic transmissions. 62 has clutches. You need to train for 72 mechanical drives, put a collective farm machine operator in 62, he will restore the transmission in the field. And for those in the tower, you can hang a lot of devices, like on top of the armor. It was not for nothing that the 55 was considered the most balanced in terms of armor-speed-barrel. 62 is a little easier, but essentially the same 54/55.
    3. +12
      21 March 2023 06: 46
      Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
      And we will leave the T-90 for biathlon.

      Khinzirs periodically knock them out. In general, this tank is actively fighting along the entire front.

      1. +6
        21 March 2023 15: 08
        This T-90M with the name "Ares" went in for repairs after the battle.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. +11
      21 March 2023 15: 34
      You rummage in your pantry, you can find not only a musket. In vain did the state spend resources on production? Or is everything older than your perception in the trash? The author correctly wrote that it’s enough for a secondary direction. Or was Ukraine so overwhelmed with second leopards that they are already everywhere? And in general, how do you know how long the conflict will last. When Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, no who did not know and did not say then that this was the beginning of the 2nd World War.
  2. +41
    21 March 2023 05: 01
    Honestly, I have more negative than positive from all this news.
    I served on the T-62M, so I have a complete understanding of its "+" and "-". And I think that there were more of the latter already in the 90s of the 20th century, not to mention today's time.
    At the moment, the main question is where to get 115-mm shells in the required quantity for these vehicles? Yes, there is still some stock of them in the arsenals, but with the consumption of ammunition that we have during the NWO, will it be enough for a long time? So, what is next?
    Start their production again or make purchases from the same DPRK?
    For me, this is how you need to remove the turret, leave the base chassis, radically improve its armor and install weapons on it like the BMPT.
    By the way, the Ukrainians use the "trophied" T-62 as a base for creating tractors and heavy armored personnel carriers
    1. +12
      21 March 2023 05: 10
      Honestly, I have more negative than positive from all this news.

      Nobody argues. But it's still good that it was 62 matches that remained in storage, and not 55 matches. recourse
      1. +21
        21 March 2023 05: 34
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        But it's still good that it was 62 matches that remained in storage, and not 55 matches.

        You know these "groanings" ... I had to serve on the T-55 as well. I also have a much better opinion about the M-MV modifications than about the T-62M-MV, although the latter, that is, the T-62MV, especially the MV-1, is the best modification. But even her T-55M-MV is superior. So the question is still the same.
        And I often have to drive near the tank storage bases here, where the T-72 / T-80 are stored, somehow their number does not decrease in open areas ... And it’s clear that they are now being brought into “condition ", as far as I know, in three shifts, factory teams, reinforced by those called up for training camps, work.
        1. +9
          21 March 2023 05: 47
          You know these "groanings" ... I had to serve on the T-55 as well. Also modifications "M-MV" and I have a much better opinion about them

          What is the best? Share, many will be interested and useful.
          1. +17
            21 March 2023 06: 14
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            What is the best?

            So it's not a secret. The T-55 is more dynamic, the gears on it switch better, more maneuverable, well, here its slightly smaller dimensions and weight affect, and of course the gun, it is more accurate. 5UTS T-62 is worse in this regard. Yes, and the rate of fire of the T-55 is higher
            1. +8
              21 March 2023 12: 30
              Quote: svp67
              The T-55 is more dynamic, the gears on it switch better,
              At the expense of gear shifting, I would not say so, since the engine compartment (respectively, the box, the same) is almost the same. But on the other hand, each tank is individual. You sit down from one 62-ki to another: the engine pulls wrong, and the gears are switched on differently, and it turns wrong. All this becomes irrelevant with experience. But here's the experience, you won't gain it instantly.
              The T-62 is slightly longer than the T-55, and therefore they are slightly different in handling: the T-62, I would say, is more imposing. And so, the tanks are almost the same (only the guns are different).
              1. +5
                21 March 2023 15: 19
                Quote: Bad_gr
                At the expense of gear shifting, I would not say so, since the engine compartment (respectively, the box, the same) is almost the same.

                Almost one to one, except for the size. The main thing here is the weight and moments arising from the large dimensions in width of the T-62. According to the mind, it had to be processed this way, but Kartsev then went through simplification in production
                Quote: Bad_gr
                T-62, I would say, more imposing.

                Here I will talk about the T-62M, with its heavily overloaded nose. And its increased length also matters here, it is not just imposing, it just pours down and rises very hard
                1. 0
                  23 March 2023 06: 10
                  Quote: svp67
                  Kartsev here went through simplification in production

                  Most likely, the fact is that the T-62 was taken as a temporary measure. an urgent response was needed to the emergence of new NATO tanks with a 105 mm cannon, despite the fact that the Morozovsky object 430 failed, and the expectation of object 432 (T-64), let's say, dragged on.
        2. +7
          21 March 2023 11: 11
          It is quite possible that just a large number of 115 shells in warehouses, as well as the possibility of purchasing them from the DPRK, returned the T-62 to service.
          1. +4
            21 March 2023 15: 22
            Quote: Sten
            It is quite possible that just a large number of 115 shells in warehouses, as well as the possibility of purchasing them from the DPRK, returned the T-62 to service.

            Alas, those shells have long been very morally obsolete, there were developments in the USSR of more powerful anti-tank ammunition, but this matter did not go beyond testing. Yes, and under them it is necessary to modernize the weapon so that it can easily withstand the increased load.
      2. +8
        21 March 2023 06: 02
        The Internet suggested in storage - T-55-1200 pieces, T-62 -689 pieces, T-64 - 4000 pieces, T-72 -7144 pieces, T-80 - 300 pieces.
        1. +5
          21 March 2023 12: 23
          I’m afraid that even the very best ones don’t have any exact numbers, how many tanks and in what condition they are. .d . Secondly, the reorganization of the framed parts into storage bases and related additions or write-offs.
        2. +8
          21 March 2023 13: 37
          Quote: V.
          The Internet suggested in storage - T-55-1200 pieces, T-62 -689 pieces, T-64 - 4000 pieces, T-72 -7144 pieces, T-80 - 300 pieces.

          Your numbers are not correct. T-64s were cut (give your wife to your uncle, and yourself ..... fight on the T-62), T-55s were cut (more precisely, they remained in single copies), T-72s are much smaller (they were actively given to Syria, sold, from they were made by B3, etc.), but the T-62 and especially the T-80 are much more in storage.
          Now, due to losses and the introduction of tanks from storage, the T-80 BV is becoming our main type of tank. Then the T-72 BZ of various options, and the T-72 B. Then the 90s and 62s.
          1. 0
            22 March 2023 22: 35
            Quote: Belisarius
            T-72 -7144 pieces,

            Quote: Belisarius
            T-72s are much smaller (they were actively given to Syria, they were sold, B3s were made from them, etc.)

            At the beginning of the last decade there were only 10 of them. They sold something, modernized something, delivered something to Syria, Serbia, Venezuela. But the figure for today is 000 pcs. looks quite real.
            Quote: Belisarius
            T-80 - 300 pieces.

            This is nonsense or a typo, because. suitable for modernization in the BVM was called the figure 3000, and in total with the first versions of the T-80 - up to 5000 pieces.
            T-64s have problematic engines and an overloaded suspension, so they will not be returned to service as tanks. But to use their hulls for conversion into heavy armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles with a front engine from the T-72 (860 l / s) would be quite reasonable and highly desirable.
            Quote: Belisarius
            T-62 -689 units

            Also nonsense. Only the 103rd plant received an order for the modernization of 800 of these tanks, and in total there are about 2000 of them in storage.
            So there are plenty of tanks in storage (like the BMP-2 and even the BMP-1), the question is the capacity and number of repair plants. And the pace of work on their repair and modernization is increasing. One UVZ is capable of producing up to 800 new tanks per year (built from scratch) in peacetime.
            1. +1
              23 March 2023 01: 05
              Quote: bayard
              This is nonsense or a typo, because. suitable for modernization in BVM was called the number 3000

              Briefly about all your theses.
              1) It is not clear why you attribute to me what Soldatov wrote. I did not write those figures with which you argue.
              2) According to the T-80. The figures of 3000 thousand in storage before the start of the operation are approximately correct. Even up to 500 were in service.
              3) According to T-72. Once again I repeat your figures are extremely overestimated. In total, there were 17831 T-72 tanks in the USSR, at least 5000 remained in the republics. The T-72 was the main tank for all 30 years. It was given away, lost, sold, cannibalized in huge quantities. You won’t find the first variations like the pure T-72 anymore. He fought everywhere from Syria and Donbass from the age of 14 to the first Chechnya.
              At the beginning of the SVO, there were about 2200 T-72s of all modifications in service (together with the LPR / DPR). In storage somewhere else 4000 in a different state. All year they were actively removed and taken both for modernization and for spare parts, and simply put into operation. Judging by the fact that T-62s and even the remnants of T-54/55s are going to the front, most likely I am an optimist and even less alive than I write.
              4) According to T-62. How much is in storage, I don't know. 800 is all that is being upgraded. Quite a few have already been installed. Most likely somewhere around 1500-2000 was at the beginning of the operation.
              5) According to T-64. There are no problems with their running gear. T-64BV compared to T-62 or even T-72A is space. At the front, they are actively used if they manage to trophy. But they just don't exist. Cut up for scrap. There is nothing to unpack. In 2014 there were still, they were given to the LDNR. Now only part of the buildings remain. Well, maybe only where single copies were lying around.
              6) According to T-54/55. There is very little left. As well as live shells under them. The fact that the echelon with the T-54 has already gone speaks of the degree of problems.
              7) For new tanks. Alas, 800 new tanks are just fantasies. Real production numbers new tanks for own army - for 2011-2019 - absolute zero, 2020-10, 2021-20. Secret since 2022. But up to 800 there as to Beijing on foot.
              8) In general, believe your eyes - and the hopelessly ancient T-62 and even more so the T-54 and the massive BMP-1 and everything else, including the D-1, are sent to the front not from an excess of new technology. Well, or read those who are at the front (like Murza), their assessments are even tougher.
              1. TIR
                0
                April 23 2023 22: 06
                That is, when we see footage from UralVagonZavod with T-90M tanks of various configurations, do we see T-72 hulls from storage? From a technological point of view, looking at the conveyor, there is no sense in your words. And if we do not have a tank production line from scratch, we would not be able to build such a plant in India. Moreover, the plant there was gradually copied and localization grew with each step
        3. +4
          22 March 2023 00: 08
          And the Internet did not tell you how many thousands of them were cut, rotted, quietly sold by cunning generals to African fighters for independence from each other, cannibalized, etc.?
        4. 0
          1 September 2023 17: 50
          It’s funny, there were about 80 of some T-3000s, I’m silent about 55 and 62, even with the sale and drinking of them in any way more than 10000, it’s another matter how many of them can really be revived, this is another question.
      3. 0
        21 March 2023 22: 14
        at the end of 2021 of the Military Balance (IISS) edition, the Russian troops, including the Airborne Forces, had only about 3000 tanks of various modifications (most of them were modifications of the T-72 tank), 5480 infantry fighting vehicles (3000 of them were Soviet BMP-3 ), more than 6900 armored personnel carriers (including 3500 Soviet lightly armored MT-LBs and 1500 BTR-80s), about 5300 artillery systems (including 820 Msta-S self-propelled guns and 800 Akatsia self-propelled guns with a caliber of 152 mm) and 750 Grad MLRS
        According to

        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4393829.html
        +/- the same

        https://www.globalfirepower.com/
        It was reported that the Russian Federation had about 22000 tanks in storage.
        Taking into account the fact that the T-72 of all modifications (Year of production - 1974 - 1990) is the most massive. In total, more than 20 units were produced.
        It can be concluded that most of it is in storage.
        Let cannibalism, poor storage, etc., there should be at least 7000-9000 usable T-72s and less than 1000 T-62s
        It takes 62 weeks to revive the T-2, T-62, I guess more
        1. +2
          22 March 2023 03: 22
          Quote from Digger
          at the end of 2021 of the Military Balance (IISS) edition, the Russian troops, including the Airborne Forces, had only about 3000 tanks of various modifications (most of them were modifications of the T-72 tank), 5480 infantry fighting vehicles (3000 of them were Soviet BMP-3 )

          Somewhere it is, only for smaller infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. And BMP-2, not BMP-3. BMP-3 by 2022 was about 700.
          Quote from Digger
          It was reported that the Russian Federation had about 22000 tanks in storage.
          Taking into account the fact that the T-72 of all modifications (Year of production - 1974 - 1990) is the most massive. Total produced - more than 20 units

          It was in storage by the beginning of the 90s (not counting the T-54 / T-55). Since then, 30 years have passed, already many times less, and what we have is in many ways 3-4 category.
          According to the T-72, a total of 17831 tanks were delivered to the Soviet army. But there was a lot left outside the Russian Federation, tanks of the 70s - early 80s were slaughtered and cannibalized, delivered abroad, they were lost in Chechnya, they were simply given away (like to Syria), T-72BZ were made from them (they were not produced). So 3 thousand in storage is the highest estimate.
          Quote from Digger
          It takes 62 weeks to revive the T-2, T-62, I guess more

          It depends on the condition of the tank. Plus repair capacities, personnel, etc. This is the most pressing problem.
          1. 0
            22 March 2023 22: 43
            Quote: Belisarius
            So 3 thousand in storage is the highest estimate.

            For 2012 - 2014 about 10 T-000s were in service and in storage in the Russian Federation. At the moment, about 72 pieces are in storage. all modifications. And 7000 T-3000BV (and another 80 pieces of earlier modifications.). These stocks will last for a long time.
      4. Uno
        0
        22 March 2023 20: 06
        I will upset you, today a video appeared that 55 was driven to the front
        1. 0
          23 March 2023 12: 13
          There is a moment. According to information, this video is March last year. And if not, I found information about the BTR-T, which is just based on 55 T. Maybe they will make a heavy armored personnel carrier out of it
    2. +6
      21 March 2023 14: 26
      [quote]. And I think that there were more of the latter already in the 90s of the 20th century, not to mention today's time. We, as the attacking side, just need a lot of tanks, tanks in general, just a lot. Therefore, when the enemy does not have a tank, but we do, even if it is an old one, and we have a lot of them, this is already a huge advantage.
      [quote] At the moment, the main question is where to get 115-mm shells in the required quantity for these vehicles? [/ quote]
      There is no such question today, their sea, these shells. In the warehouses of NZ, 15-20 years ago, revolvers of the Nagant system lay, TT, Maxim machine guns, Degtyareva, a bunch of PPSh, etc.
      [quote] By the way, the Ukrainians use the "trophied" T-62s as a base for creating tractors and heavy armored personnel carriers [/ quote]
      Almost any "trophied" technique gets damaged. If they can cope with the running gear, at the very least, they can handle it, but it is problematic with the controls, weapons, aiming and guidance systems. So, if IT can ride, why not use it?
      1. 0
        21 March 2023 23: 46
        Today we are talking about the fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have tanks left, not just a few

        So they have an economy in the rear with 440 + million people (this is by rail and auto)
        And overseas in 330+ million

        Which is not bombed, balls do not fly.
        They will start delivering from there, how they will train the operators
    3. +4
      21 March 2023 16: 41
      Quote: svp67
      By the way, the Ukrainians use the "trophied" T-62 as a base for creating tractors and heavy armored personnel carriers

      The reason is simple. They don't have 115mm ammo for them. Ukraine "from distribution" in the 90s had relatively few T-62s left, and at the same time they cut them along with the shells.
      Only we and the DPRK have shells for the T-62. Fresh only from the DPRK. And so even the T-55 Slovenian dill is used exactly as a tank.
  3. +13
    21 March 2023 05: 36
    By the standards of the Second World War, tanks are the main striking force.
    But is the tank component a shock component in the current NWO?
    Classically, no.
    For there are no breakthroughs in the enemy's strategic defense, there is no access to the operational space, there is no 100-kilometer marches during the development of the offensive.
    Tanks are now mobile pillboxes.
    And, in part, self-propelled guns.
    Maybe, based on the tasks that tanks perform, it is worth upgrading, omitting the unnecessary?
    Well, the topic of a "specific" gun caliber is also painfully relevant.
    1. +4
      21 March 2023 06: 13
      Quote: U-58
      By the standards of the Second World War, tanks are the main striking force.

      good It is this comment that I like more than other lamentations on modernization issues ...
      I already wrote once that in the Kremlin no one wants to ride Chaikas and Volgas, and with tanks they decided to show miracles in vegetable oil ...
    2. +3
      21 March 2023 12: 00
      Maybe that's why there are no breakthroughs and access to the operational space, what is everyone doing with what they fought in the Second World War? Namely, pulling tanks apart by brigades, using them on secondary sectors of the front, and as artillery?
  4. +3
    21 March 2023 05: 44
    After the withdrawal of our army from Western and Eastern Europe, some kind of smart head brought all the tanks beyond the Urals. Then I heard a figure about the presence of 60 thousand tanks in Russia, it is clear that all names and modifications.
    In addition to the modern T-90 breakthrough tanks, the rest can be used as self-propelled guns.
    One of the mysteries of the SVO is why tank armies are not used. Simultaneously from 1000 to 2000 tanks.
    Ukraine is a so-so country in terms of distances. In width in a straight line it can be driven on one refueling of the tank.
    Here Ukraine seems to be going to do this in order to break through to the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov. Now she is collecting
    tank fist up to 1000 tanks plus self-propelled guns.
    Will we be able to hold out like at the Battle of Kursk.
    If we do not have enough infantry personnel, then we can put up any tanks on the northern border with Ukraine to cool her ardor and pull her troops away from the eastern front. soldier
    1. +15
      21 March 2023 06: 20
      There was an agreement, abbreviated as CFE - an agreement on the limitation of armaments of ground forces in Europe, it seems. According to him, in the European part of Russia there should not have been tanks of more than a certain number, unless, of course, I'm mistaken.
      1. +2
        21 March 2023 15: 30
        Quote: AlexisT
        There was an agreement, abbreviated as CFE - an agreement on the limitation of armaments of ground forces in Europe, it seems. According to him, in the European part of Russia there should not have been tanks of more than a certain number, unless, of course, I'm mistaken.

        Yes, there was such an agreement, but Russia withdrew from it a long time ago. But he limited the Russian arsenal to 20 thousand tanks in the European part of the country, which is natural for a long time, Russia simply could not pull.
    2. +14
      21 March 2023 06: 22
      Well, the answer is obvious. Firstly, the fact that there are a lot of tanks does not mean that they are all on the move. Secondly - where to get so many crews? Thirdly, are our commanders able to control such masses? And how is our connection in general?
      1. +3
        21 March 2023 11: 36
        I think with this we have "as always"
    3. +2
      21 March 2023 11: 57
      It's one thing to march! And completely different - victory! With a minimum number of victims! And as the practice of recent "wars" shows, the march itself is a very serious test - there "technical" gatherings and failures reach 50-60% of all equipment!
      1. +1
        21 March 2023 18: 29
        Quote: Sergey Dvornikov
        as the practice of recent "wars" shows, the march itself is a very serious test - there "technical" gatherings and failures reach 50-60% of all equipment!

        During the first Gulf War, a Syrian T-62 division made a 500 km march WITHOUT A SINGLE TANK AGAINST! (The only one of all the countries of the anti-Iraq coalition)
        1. +3
          21 March 2023 22: 49
          You will not envy the mechanics-drivers))
          "in a fully "mechanical" T-62 tank, in one hour of movement, the driver presses and releases the gas pedal an average of 1291 times, uses the turn levers about 809 times and shifts gears about 17 times. In numerical terms, the energy consumption for these actions is at level 1,34, XNUMX kW."
    4. +3
      21 March 2023 12: 08
      Because the artillery is predominantly howitzer, and the tank is cannon. Moreover, we still have to have howitzers Akatsiya, Gvozdika, Nona. And to use a tank, where it is better to handle a cheap 120-mm mortar, is expensive and stupid.
    5. +4
      21 March 2023 14: 59
      Tank crews are also not in excess. Now in civilian life an intelligent tractor driver is worth its weight in gold. And then at MTZ and the like.
  5. +7
    21 March 2023 07: 11
    Thanks to that general who defended at least the remaining cars! In the 90s and 00s they were cut with a frenzy. Otherwise, they would have been left without tanks at all.
  6. -11
    21 March 2023 07: 22
    The concept of a mass armored attack, tank waves, thousands of tanks going into battle in a deployed formation and not taking into account the losses of hundreds of units in one day. That's what cheap and easy-to-manufacture tanks of the USSR were created for. The enemy should soon run out of ammunition and fail tanks while ours are moving forward, burning in crowds, and the women are still giving birth. The T-62 is an old city. It is a medium tank, like the T-34, not the main one. The death of the crew is guaranteed from hitting any anti-tank projectile. The “T-62M model of the 22nd” year does not exist, I was in the atamanovka and saw the “modernized” tank in training back in 2017, fairy tales from
    1. +9
      21 March 2023 09: 24
      Are you a fan of the Enemy at the Gates shit movie?
      What women still give birth?
      What "run out of ammunition"?

      Losses of the Red Army to the Euroreich 1 to 2, if with all allies, 1,4: 1,3 with the Wehrmacht.
      This is taking into account all the failures of 41-43 years.
      And how they "learned" to fight at 43-45 generally does honor.

      No one arranged a mass slaughter, or "neglected" their fighters, and even more so tankers.

      Of course, in the production and planning of the database, the USSR relied on the experience of previous wars, and laid in production - manufacturability, and the possibility of mass production of equipment, and in plans for a retaliatory strike - the rapid actions of mobile groups, because the enemy must be beaten around, cutting communications and leading him to the rear of the army.
      And not to fight with your forehead in pillboxes, as at Verdun or as the Russian Federation near Donetsk.

      Losses from a protracted conflict, from a battle with an enemy who managed to turn around to you ALWAYS more.

      The T-62, for its time, had GOOD protection.
      At that time, MBT WAS NOT YET IN PRINCIPLE.

      Therefore, running into an old man is nonsense.
      You still hit the T-34 that the tank, which at 41 did not pierce anything from anti-aircraft guns and tanks - only anti-aircraft guns, by 43 was not so protected, due to the creation of funds specifically against it and square.

      You ask the RF Ministry of Defense where, over the past 30, well, at least 8 years, MBTs that meet the requirements of the time, where is the KAZ, where are the shells for 750-1000mm penetration per 2 km, where is the modern remote sensing.
      Or sights - their own, and not with a French matrix from Belarus.

      I do not argue that 62 has no place in the troops, no matter how you make reservations, this will not become a modern MBT.

      I do not argue that it is better to have a tank with a gun at checkpoints than nothing and a couple of concrete blocks.

      But running into an old car with idiocy right now is nonsense.
      Run into the figures whose activities have brought us to the point that we are fighting on the BMP-1 and the T-62.
      1. -4
        21 March 2023 11: 39
        Quote: Devil13
        Losses of the Red Army to the Euroreich 1 to 2, if with all allies, 1,4: 1,3 with the Wehrmacht.
        This is taking into account all the failures of 41-43 years.
        And how they "learned" to fight at 43-45 generally does honor.

        I remember 3:1 with the Reich. It is better with Hungarians and Romanians, but Hungarians and Romanians killed each other.
        Quote: Devil13
        You still hit the T-34, that the tank, which at 41 did not pierce anything from anti-tank guns and tanks - only anti-aircraft guns

        Pak 36 did not take it, in this you are right. Pak 38 took uncertainly. The cumulatives helped well, but only at a dagger distance. Even anti-tank guns penetrated weak spots, but it's easy to say to target a weak spot for a tank. It's just from the couch.
        On the other hand, the Germans quickly supplied several types of 75mm to the troops. Including Pak 36 (p), khe-khe. So in the 42nd it was already much easier.
        1. 0
          21 March 2023 14: 05
          so in the 42nd it was already much easier.

          PAK 40 burrowed into the ground after three shots and it was no longer possible to deploy or pull it out in combat conditions. And for one PAK 40 there were 3-5 Russian T34s, since they were used en masse and not 1 tank each!
          So tell me where you saw it easily? Ask how easy it was for Paulus in 1942-43?
          1. +2
            21 March 2023 14: 32
            Quote: Alexey G
            PAK 40 burrowed into the ground after three shots and it was no longer possible to deploy or pull it out in combat conditions

            The difficulties of the German artillerymen are exaggerated.
            Quote: Alexey G
            PAK 40 accounted for 3-5 Russian T34s, since they were used en masse and not 1 tank each!

            Soviet. There may be few guns, but the shells were normally imported.
            Quote: Alexey G
            Ask how easy it was for Paulus in 1942-43?

            Do you really want to discuss the adventures of the field marshal with me?
            1. +2
              21 March 2023 14: 56
              Quote: Alexey G
              Ask how easy it was for Paulus in 1942-43?
              Do you really want to discuss the adventures of the field marshal with me?


              Oh, good tube old-school discussion about the T34!
              I’ll throw a little on the fan from the VO website in order to warm it up, so to speak:
              "The main drawback of the T-34 experts "Armor Institute" recognized ... the crew! The tankers could not take full advantage of the armored vehicles entrusted to them and exposed the sides to enemy artillery fire. Moreover, they were inattentive on the battlefield and missed the firing points of the Germans.
              ... in the report of TsNII-48 and reasoning about the nature of the defeat of the T-34. Based on the fact that 50,5% of all defeats occurred on board, it was concluded that the tactical training of the tankers of the Red Army was poor.
              It turned out that the Soviet T-34s were fired from everything that the Germans had at hand. Range of calibers: 20mm, 37mm, 42mm, 50mm, 75mm, 88mm and 105mm. The percentage of destruction by one or another projectile varies greatly and depends primarily on the availability of guns in the artillery of the Wehrmacht. Most often, researchers from TsNII-48 met marks from 50-mm guns, which the German anti-tankers had the most. In second place were 75 mm and 37 mm guns, and the rarest were 20 mm and 88 mm marks. Obviously, it was useless to fire at the T-20 from 34-mm cannons, even though the training manual described above called for this, and there were simply not so many anti-aircraft Acht-acht in the tank-dangerous directions of the front. 88-mm were expectedly the most deadly for the T-34: 95% of hits led, if not to the destruction of the vehicle with the crew, then to severe damage. For 75-mm shells, this figure was 69%, for 50-mm shells - 43%.
              "
              https://topwar.ru/174490-t-34-pod-ognem-protivnika-fakty-i-statistika.html
              https://topwar.ru/174294-porazhaemost-t-34-otchet-bronevogo-instituta.html

              Still, about the Navy, the diskas would start ... dreams, dreams ....
              1. 0
                21 March 2023 16: 19
                Hardly.

                The people went cold, there is no one to defend the honor of Ukrainian tank building.
                1. -1
                  21 March 2023 18: 04
                  I'll try again...

                  Hmm dear!
                  The vertical armor of the T34 side turned out to be more projectile-resistant than the inclined one!
            2. 0
              22 March 2023 01: 39
              And why not ... are you the historian Alexei Isaev?
            3. -2
              22 March 2023 01: 45
              The difficulties of the German artillerymen are exaggerated.

              Yes, incorrect, therefore, most of them were left to rot in the fields of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus ...
              They had no problems, so they surrendered Berlin and the Reichstag! Just don't create problems for yourself!
        2. 0
          22 March 2023 02: 08
          Including Pak 36 (p), khe-khe.

          Do you know where the Germans have this cannon? And why does she have the letter r? Not P as you have, namely r?
          Everything is just F22, a Soviet gun that the Germans stocked up and began to remake for anti-tank needs, because they had nothing of their own against the T34!
        3. 0
          22 March 2023 02: 28
          put several types of 75mm into the troops. Including Pak 36(r)

          And that's not a problem for you Negro! Since Pak 36 is Russian, then 75 mm is not for her, not our size!
          Our 76mm. was. So...
          but the shells were normally imported.

          But since 76mm, they hardly brought in enough shells! They are also trophy...
          This is Oldskull! I hear from a bad old man! hi
          1. -2
            23 March 2023 13: 38
            Why 4 messages for one?
            Quote: Alexey G
            But since 76mm, they hardly brought in enough shells! They are also trophy...

            Where are you going? Shot Pak36(r) was reinforced, German. The sleeve is larger, respectively, the breech of the gun has been redone.
            Quote: Alexey G
            against the T34 they had nothing of their own!

            When the Germans had nothing of their own, they reached Khimki. And in the 42nd and beyond, it already appeared.
            Quote: Alexey G
            They had no problems, so they surrendered Berlin and the Reichstag! Just don't create problems for yourself!

            Long conversation. Wars on two fronts began to talk about the potential problem for Germany long before the T-34.
            Quote: Alexey G
            Are you historian Alexei Isaev?

            What does Comrade Isaev have to do with it? Will he tell us that destroying tank divisions in urban battles was a so-so idea?
            1. 0
              24 March 2023 21: 17
              Where are you going?

              No, not where I climb, but what are you writing about?
              You write that the problems of the Germans in artillery are exaggerated ... Right?
              But the search for anti-tank artillery from the enemy suggests otherwise.
              And it's not me, but you attribute Pak 36 to caliber 75!
              So it's not me, but you're not climbing there.
              And what does the reinforced breech and the long sleeve have to do with it?
              This does not make the gun German! She is essentially Russian and it is written in Russian on her breech!
      2. +1
        21 March 2023 18: 34
        Quote: Devil13
        You still hit the T-34, that the tank, which at 41 did not pierce anything from anti-tank guns and tanks - only anti-aircraft guns,

        105mm howitzer took. And in their troops there were more than 88mm anti-aircraft guns.
  7. +5
    21 March 2023 11: 49
    I think we need a sign, which modification of the T-62, which modification of the Leopard 2 will hit without loss. Perhaps Kirill Ryabov will take it.
    1. +5
      21 March 2023 12: 25
      Quote: Negro
      need a plate, which modification of the T-62, which modification of the Leopard 2

      T-62m will drag against the same-level Leopard-1A5. Modern reconstruction of the clash between the armies of the Warsaw Pact and NATO.
      1. B44
        +2
        21 March 2023 12: 44
        I had exactly the same thought, only slightly shifted to the east, because there were suggestions that the actions should have taken place on the Polish-German border, the rest is correct. It's a pity for the tankers, they must fight on the latest technology and not on the T-62.
    2. 0
      21 March 2023 23: 02
      Without any losses, they are even more likely not even theoretically to meet, for some reason I don’t remember that somewhere the t-62 was shining at all, only t-72,80,90 are fighting. And it’s easy to disable it, there, by default, tankers immediately hit under the turret, and if it’s 115 or 125, the projectile won’t seem like much, even if the OFS.
  8. +5
    21 March 2023 12: 05
    Modifications to roll, but you must first think about what is really needed in the first place! In addition to improving the protection of the car, you need to take care of the "striking" qualities of the tank! Messing around with "classic" BOPS and "cumulatives" ... perhaps a hopeless undertaking for a 115-mm gun ... But, how is it done among the people? "If you can't, but you really want to ... then you can!" ... There is an option to create active-reactive BOPS ... (some experts say that this is a promising direction ...), but this is for the future ... too long and costly for the tasks and deadlines of the CBO! The same trouble with guided (corrected) shells with a seeker! Self-aiming shells (SPS) remain ... It is considered "by default" that self-aiming shells (SPS) are easier, cheaper and faster than guided ones! And in the production of ATP is easier and cheaper! The "goal" for the SPB is, first of all, the sides and "roof" of the MBT, then the stern ... The larger the caliber of the gun, the "more convenient" it is to create an anti-tank projectile! But American (STAFF) 120-mm self-aiming shells for tank guns are known, and the French 120-mm tank shell "Polynege" is known with a similar arrangement of the EFP charge, but with a seeker! But the ATP option is also possible! -mm projectile for SPS - I can’t say for sure, but I admit that it’s possible!It should also be taken into account that the American, French 115-mm SPS given in the example without trajectory adjustment; that is, the most "simple" in design and, in consequently, cheaper ...! Known technical solutions implemented in South Korea ... tank shells "KSTAM-I" and "KSTAM-II"! These shells are without engines! The first projectile "works" on the principle of a mine with a seeker; and the second, like the "banal" SPBE (SPB) (well, for example, Motiv-120K) ... When creating self-aiming 3-mm tank shells, you may have to use the principle "trajectory turn"! This complicates the design a little, but such a projectile, all the same, may turn out to be cheaper than a guided one ...

    Of course, not only "clean" tank shells would be quite effective, but also tank missiles with laser beam guidance and "transverse" SPS ... but here an obstacle appears if the equipment for launching tank missiles is removed from the tanks ...

    Well, and finally, we can also mention "tank" UAVs launched from the barrel of a 120-mm tank gun!

    1.POLYNEGE

    2.KSTAM-I

    3.KSTAM II
  9. +2
    21 March 2023 12: 56
    It would even occur to one smart guy to make a normal tbmp out of 62. Considering that our millers grind everything in frontal attacks. In the same bakhmut, such a machine came in handy, at least as a kshm, and for moving personnel in the city itself.
    1. +6
      21 March 2023 18: 42
      Quote: Vincent Price
      It would even occur to one smart guy to make a normal tbmp out of 62.

      It has come. In Algeria.
      1. 0
        23 March 2023 16: 40
        It is clear that the solution is standard, but the tower would be thicker and a 37mm gun
    2. 0
      21 March 2023 23: 04
      All attacks are frontal, they crush wherever it is thin and breaks.
  10. +3
    21 March 2023 13: 59
    "The troops have 70% of the latest technology"
    1. +2
      21 March 2023 15: 56
      So equipment at storage bases is not taken into account in these calculations.
    2. +3
      21 March 2023 16: 48
      Exactly. The key word is in the troops, i.e. in military units.
  11. +2
    21 March 2023 16: 36
    Of course, this old T-62 was pulled out not from a good life. It looks like we have big losses in tanks, but there is nothing special to make up for. So they remembered the old man. Yes, and the cost of restoration is much less than on the T-72 or T-80. But to send to war "naked" without dynamic protection, as in the picture, with a tank captured by Bandera, this, of course, does not climb into any gates. This is nonsense bordering on a crime. No one seems to think about the life of the crews of these tanks, about their safety and security.
    1. 0
      21 March 2023 23: 05
      You generally saw them somewhere in battle, and we have infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers without heavy armor, so it’s different just in battle.
  12. +2
    21 March 2023 19: 13
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Sten
    It is quite possible that just a large number of 115 shells in warehouses, as well as the possibility of purchasing them from the DPRK, returned the T-62 to service.

    Alas, those shells have long been very morally obsolete, there were developments in the USSR of more powerful anti-tank ammunition, but this matter did not go beyond testing. Yes, and under them it is necessary to modernize the weapon so that it can easily withstand the increased load.

    It is possible that there are not very many shells for the T-62, but it seems that they were thrown into Ukraine to develop the available ones. And the targets for them are far from always tanks - infantry, cars, light armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles. That is, for most purposes, firepower is more than enough.
    But restoring the T-72 and T-80, perhaps, is impractical due to the insufficient amount of ammunition for more equipment. We supplemented the available ammunition with other areas of possible hostilities, and are releasing new ones. There will be plenty of them - perhaps they will take on the T-72 with the T-80. Or even more boost the production of the T-90M.
  13. +3
    21 March 2023 19: 46
    Quote: Sergey Dvornikov
    It's one thing to march! And completely different - victory! With a minimum number of victims! And as the practice of recent "wars" shows, the march itself is a very serious test - there "technical" gatherings and failures reach 50-60% of all equipment!

    And now there are so many anti-tank weapons that advancing in columns in the old fashioned way will certainly lead to heavy losses. ATGMs, drones, MLRS and artillery, mines. It is unlikely that there is at least one army in the world that has effective tactics for overcoming the mass of weapons of destruction.
    It is strange that ours generally started with throws in columns. It seems that they outplayed intelligence, and the version with the "loyalty" of some Ukrainian authorities may well be correct. As it worked on the scale of the whole Ukraine, so did it with the entrance to Kharkiv. They reached Kyiv, carried out reconnaissance in battle in the suburbs, denoting their presence, but there was no uprising in Kyiv against Zelensky. I had to start fighting in earnest.
    The way ours are advancing now, on a wide front without breaking through columns, is the only easy way to conduct an offensive with a saturation of anti-tank weapons. For all other methods, a deep revision of tactics and a corresponding reform of the army are needed. There is no time or money for this right now. Ours will press as they press until the enemy is exhausted, until the front crumbles. In particular, there will be an emphasis on weakening support from the West.
    1. -1
      21 March 2023 23: 07
      It has long been sorted out why at the beginning of the SVO they did it as it was, and not otherwise, do not read any hysterics of military bloggers.
  14. -7
    21 March 2023 21: 57
    Eh, Taburetkin would have a soldering iron near the anus of the occasion.
    What will we do with pests and saboteurs, they still rule?!
    1. +5
      21 March 2023 22: 21
      Again Serdyukov is to blame for everything?) If something, Serdyukov left the post of the Ministry of Defense ten years ago.
      1. 0
        3 December 2023 08: 54
        Yeah, the drunk has nothing to do with it, and the GDP is not aisles, everything “before it” was destroyed, and in the end, you and I are to blame for allowing this to happen.
  15. +3
    21 March 2023 23: 25
    the T-62 tank was stored for this, in order to get it and use it if necessary.
    I think the decision is correct and timely.
    Used on the sidelines, as a mobile gun, strengthening checkpoints this tank will do.
    I think that after the Victory, no one will say now how many of them will remain in units and in storage. It is possible to leave in storage 1500 tanks modernized according to a single standard. Subject to a sufficient number of shells for them. Or do as below.

    The rest of the T 62s need to be unified in terms of engine, additional protection and .... replace the turret with a combat module from BMP 3 or Baikal, or in extreme cases, Berezhok
    Those. use the experience of Algeria. We will get a combat vehicle with unified armament with motorized riflemen and paratroopers and better protection than from armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. And putting them in QUALITY storage, the RF Armed Forces will have a good reserve for good equipment.
  16. 0
    22 March 2023 00: 19
    T-62 is like vintage wine or cognac, it only gets better with age. feel The GABTU and the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation probably proceeded from the following considerations: 1. A lot 2. Cheap 3. Working out the mechanisms for restoring equipment removed from storage by repair plants 4. Gaining experience with entering the working cycle of work by newly created repair units of factories from among the mobilized. Approximately as in an episode from the immortal film by A. Gaidai, a masterpiece of Russian cinema "Operation Y": - Train better out on cats! recourse
  17. 0
    22 March 2023 00: 41
    Question to the author: the weight of the bulk of our tanks is 46 tons maximum, ''Proryv'' - 48, Abrams and Leopard - 66 tons each, the difference is 20 tons, respectively, they are also larger in all dimensions, which means they are more armored. Why, when choosing the main battle tank, did we choose a medium tank, and not a heavy one like NATO? During the Second World War, the T-34 played a big role, but the losses were huge and the IS-2 still had to be made. We have no analogues of the IS-2, and our medium tanks suffer such losses that ... Yes, anti-tank guns are not suppressed, but maybe a heavy tank would be effective under such conditions? I wonder how our defense will cope with the Abrams and Leopards?
  18. -3
    22 March 2023 01: 57
    I’m crazy without a button accordion! Campaign, "fairy tales" with countless armadas crammed into the trash from Ukrainian calculators of Russian losses, turned out to be not far from the truth and losses in tanks are also very, very oh .... oh, what not small ones!
    It only confuses me personally, but what about Armata? Maybe it would make sense to bring it to mind and increase production in so much time, and not conjure over rarities? I’m already silent for the crowds in T72 warehouses, where did they go? and now, as in a joke, give your wife to your uncle, and go to b...
    1. 0
      22 March 2023 13: 33
      There are a lot of tanks sewn on, a lot. This is not civilian equipment, military equipment is undergoing major repairs very quickly, motor resources, it is also motor resources in Africa, and how many tanks they lost exactly and how, but no one except the Moscow Region knows. Sometimes it’s not clear whether the tank just stood up and was later destroyed, or it was immediately knocked out. Yes, and according to stories, there are also a lot of wrecked in the trash, but the crew is whole. Most likely we will find out for sure after the war.
  19. 0
    22 March 2023 03: 31
    Quote from Igor
    Why, when choosing the main battle tank, did we choose a medium tank, and not a heavy one like NATO? During the Second World War, the T-34 played a big role, but the losses were huge and the IS-2 still had to be made. We have no analogues of the IS-2, and our medium tanks suffer such losses that ... Yes, anti-tank guns are not suppressed, but maybe a heavy tank would be effective under such conditions? I wonder how our defense will cope with the Abrams and Leopards?

    Now the role of a heavy tank with a powerful gun is played by numerous means of destruction of armored vehicles. Let's hope that in confirmation of this we will soon see many burnt heavyweights on the fields of Ukraine.
    1. -1
      22 March 2023 09: 26
      A tank fights not only with tanks, and maybe not even so much. Both the Tiger and the IS-2 were created as a weapon to break through the defense in the offensive. Their anti-tank capabilities in this case are important, but secondary. In defense, on the contrary, anti-tank capabilities are more important. But even in the Second World War, not only tanks and not so much tanks fought against tanks. So the question remains: why was a medium tank chosen as a breakthrough weapon rather than a heavy one. Although in principle it is clear. The idea. That the tank is mainly introduced into the breakthrough and tears the rear, well, it gnaws through the defense, supporting the infantry only secondarily. And more tanks can be made and their mobility is higher. Interestingly, is this a conceptual error, or have we simply forgotten how to properly suppress anti-tank weapons, or have they become so intensified? While our tanks were the same. Abrams and Leopards will appear, let's see what happens.
  20. +1
    22 March 2023 03: 35
    Quote: tohoto
    It has long been sorted out why at the beginning of the SVO they did it as it was, and not otherwise, do not read any hysterics of military bloggers.

    IMHO, it is difficult to accurately judge this without knowing all the undercover politics at the very top. But I would be grateful if you share your version.
    1. -1
      22 March 2023 13: 29
      This has already been voiced, but it’s just by which of the high-ranking ones, it seems, one of the generals of the headquarters told on some talk show. There the tactics were simple, to quickly take comfortable positions and the sooner the better, and near Kiev it was just a distraction from the South, there were several thousand people, large cities do not take with such forces.
  21. 0
    22 March 2023 11: 25
    Here, most likely, the question is how to use the T-62, if in frontal assault events it’s simply not reasonable, but as a decently protected artillery mount, then it’s a completely different matter, this is not bulletproof / fragmentation armor for you! And yes, it would be a priority to equip these tanks with dynamic protection against a cumulative threat, because the vast majority of equipment was hit not from tank guns and towed guns, but from RPGs and ATGMs.


    [Center]
  22. +4
    22 March 2023 13: 57
    Well, who will be the first to write about T54 and T55? soldier
    1. 0
      22 March 2023 15: 27
      Quote: Wildcat
      Well, who will be the first to write about T54 and T55?

      Well, this brahl only a couple of hundred will be typed. Live. But the fact that they were already taken (also in the old version) kind of hints ...
      With such an amazing conduct of the war, it is already bloody to export although modified versions of the T-62 from the DPRK. I don’t even dream about type 96 from China.
      Another thing is that with such a political and military leadership, you can squander any equipment and in any quantity.
  23. 0
    22 March 2023 17: 35
    I ask for confirmation. There is news on Oryx that Russia is going to send t54/55 to Ukraine. Truth or lie.

    https://notes.citeam.org/t-54
  24. 0
    22 March 2023 19: 44
    To be honest, this is all sad. Realize that Russia in the NMD has such huge losses in tanks that frankly ancient rubbish of the Soviet 60s is taken from storage bases (in other words, from the fields) and sent to the front - game under shamanism. No matter what they tell us and explain about their usefulness and justification, it doesn’t fit in my head that they demetalized the neighboring territory to the point that modern tanks ran out and we urgently need to stamp new ones in three shifts and remove obsolete ones from storage bases.
    1. -2
      22 March 2023 21: 22
      How do you know about the losses, they are not publicly available? And tanks from storage are needed for that, and you can’t really see them.
    2. 0
      23 March 2023 18: 34
      Losses in all equipment are by now very significant, even without taking into account "combat losses", about the size of which a very small number of people have accurate information. The army has been actively fighting for a year now, during this period, even wheeled vehicles far from repair and restoration enterprises, working for wear and tear, will go to scrap. What can we say about tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
  25. 0
    22 March 2023 21: 20
    One can recall the experience of Algeria in the alteration of the T-62 by replacing the native tower with Berezhok.
  26. +1
    23 March 2023 01: 47
    ANY tank is, first of all, a self-propelled artillery mount. In short - a cannon ... And ANY cannon protected by armor is better than an unprotected cannon. And if so, why be surprised that the old T-62s (not even modernized) want to be used in the NWO, where there are simple guns and mortars? ... It is unlikely that they will be thrown into some kind of breakthrough, but in war there is always a place for a tank ...
  27. 0
    23 March 2023 11: 00
    At the military commissar, we were told that our MT12 cannon is well taken with tanks of the T55 and T62 levels (and their Western counterparts), but that’s all with 64ki and 72.
  28. 0
    23 March 2023 12: 05
    Quote: Proxima
    our valiant "optimizers" forgot.

    In recent years, this has been observed everywhere.
    First they "optimize", but frankly speaking, they destroy it.
    For example, as feldsher points in the countryside.
    Last year, a man died from an acute attack of appendicitis.
    The FP is closed, the Internet, for telemedicine, (so that they tell him over the network how to remove his own appendix in the field) does not work.
    So he died without waiting for the ambulance from the city.
    It's irony.
    And in Moskvabad, before the pandemic, the mayor (there is a video on YouTube, reported how beds were optimized (destroyed) in the capital.
    A pandemic broke out, and with a burning ass, they began to place diseases in ethnic malls (such as Your House Azerbaijan).

    To young henchmen in power, whatever gets into their hands, everything will be destroyed.
    Ran out. CBO, and scum-optimizers, all as one dumped over the hill.
    Five vice-premiers, previously seen in the destruction of industrial production, quickly left for the hillock, promptly betraying our Motherland.

    This is the question of who surrounds the Leader of the Nation.

    Isn't it time to clean up the ranks.
    And the most odious figures who "distinguished themselves" in the destruction of military-industrial complex plants will be punished, together with their patrons and relatives, who usually live on the YuBF (South Coast of France) or in London.
    Greetings to Peskov's daughter (UBF) and son (England).
    1. +1
      23 March 2023 18: 39
      With FAPs, in general, an interesting story. Since 2015, under the slogans of the national project and money from the federal budget, with a "burning ass", they have restored abandoned and built new FAPs. They solemnly opened, and then quietly closed due to the lack of medical staff and profits. As a result, out of 12 opened in our area (by the way, the most borderline one), 3 remained to work
  29. 0
    24 March 2023 03: 37
    Quote: Alexey G
    Including Pak 36 (p), khe-khe.

    Do you know where the Germans have this cannon? And why does she have the letter r? Not P as you have, namely r?
    Everything is just F22, a Soviet gun that the Germans stocked up and began to remake for anti-tank needs, because they had nothing of their own against the T34!

    Not because there was nothing, but because the Germans were reasonable practitioners, and by the way they converted them into more powerful ammunition, by the way, our captured Pak-40s also actively used
  30. 0
    24 March 2023 09: 36
    Quote: Alexey G
    put several types of 75mm into the troops. Including Pak 36(r)

    And that's not a problem for you Negro! Since Pak 36 is Russian, then 75 mm is not for her, not our size!
    Our 76mm. was. So...
    but the shells were normally imported.

    But since 76mm, they hardly brought in enough shells! They are also trophy...
    This is Oldskull! I hear from a bad old man! hi

    For your information, for Pak 36 (r), the Germans released their unitar with an over-caliber sleeve, because in the f-22 and f-22 USV they squandered the charging chambers and these became what are called completely different anti-tank guns. This possibility of modernization dates back to the history of the creation of the F-22, which was originally conceived for a more powerful ammunition.
  31. 0
    26 March 2023 14: 59
    As long as there are shells for them, it makes sense to use them. When the shells run out - convert into ARVs, bridge layers, armored kamikaze, etc.
  32. 0
    30 March 2023 09: 39
    With good how? T-62 is good, good. There is better, there is. The best is the enemy of the good and not "M, N, O, P, R, S, T" to the tank, I think "Armata" should be included, at least theoretically! And the IMF, represented by Siluanov, Nabiullina? That's a matter of time!
  33. 0
    30 March 2023 21: 41
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Eduard Perov
    What is the best?

    So it's not a secret.

    But the Syrians like the T-62M, there are enough videos where the metal-polymer block withstands the TOW anti-tank missile system (well, not always), they love it for unitary ammunition, there is less chance of dying from the detonation of ammunition, a powerful landmine, mine protection from the driver mechanic. And the Syrians also turn off the cartridge case ejection mechanism so that the gun does not rise to the loading angle and thereby speed up reloading.
    Of course, any tank, any school of tank building has its pros, cons and compromises.
  34. 0
    April 26 2023 09: 56
    The roosters are crowing - wake up! The dudes are coming - bent over! Before the NMD, Minister of Defense Shoigu regularly broadcast - he voiced the high percentage of modern weapons in the army - and what happened? And I remember how this long-liver in 1993 handed over to Gaidar about 1000 machine guns for firing at the defenders of the Supreme Council ... Now it seems that the Shoigu voiced by this should be divided by 10, if not a greater number ... It is depressing that firefighters are starting put out fires when the hut is burning with might and main! And they did not study in military academies, but studied in a completely different way ...
  35. 0
    April 26 2023 11: 23
    There were several units of armored vehicles at the institute ... 2 T80s were taken back in the summer of 2022. This year they took 3 T72s and an infantry fighting vehicle, as well as an evacuation vehicle. The plant in Krasnye Zori is full of work. Recruiting staff. And last year, even electricians were taken there from the institute for a month. Incl. most likely all thousands of T72s and others are in storage ... not quite the standard.