I always wondered about the question of this video

Do you think tankettes might return to the battlefield as remote operated vehicles?

Another correction: the gun on the T-54 and -55 is not the D-IOTS (or D-OITS as you said), but the D-10TS.

You've missed a lot here. Spare parts, it shares a large part of the components with the most manufactured tank platform in the world, the T-54/55. Tracks, wheels, torsion bars, gearbox, engine upgraded from V-55 to V-55U or new engine share a large part of the parts T-55 engine. Exports of T-72 tanks from Russia after 1991 are almost non-existent and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so I do not know what anyone would sell, the whole thing with those T-62 in operation will be also the reason for a large stock of parts and ammunition compared to parts and 125mm ammunition consumed on the much more used T-72, T-80, T-90 in the last 40 years compared to the T-62/55, which in turn were not so much used. The Russians have problems with the people, not with the number of equipment, so I think they can easily send more tanks than the crews have as a backup, already tankers receive a replacement tank for their own destroyed or damaged, it looks like they are most often T-72B1 and given the photos of the transports, it will probably be the T-80BV as well. If you watch Oryx, you can see how much the T-72B's losses came out compared to the T-72B3 and M, which were documented as the highest losses in the first month of the war. Technical problems can really come, given that these are machines that last a long time and suddenly someone pulls them into operation, I see the biggest weakness in their ballistic computer and laser sight, a sensitive technique that is +35 years old and often possibly stored in humidity or winter. 3BM-21M, in some small quantities of newly produced Russian 115mm ammunition, has a penetration capacity of 480mm APF, is less than the last Soviet 3BM32 / 3BM42 125mm with 540 / 500mm, but more than ammunition produced until 1985, which will have Ukraine the largest numbers. Apparently Ukrainians do not use heavy equipment much and probably save the equipment, so the tank will meet the infantry just as often, if the Ukrainians do not want to make an offensive and the war will finally move to some greater intensity, where then there will be no problem finding a record where there would be more than 2- 3 pieces of destroyed equipment in one place. The protection of T-72B tanks with contact 5 is well known and is also on wikipedia, turet 800-1180mm hull 690-940mm APF-HEAT. The turret of T-62M's armor is as strong as the several hundred M84 / T-72M / 1 sent there. I don't understand the bullshit with the fact that tanks without a charger have some greater protection, if the projectile goes in, I don't care if the whole ammunition carried explodes, because I'm most likely dead anyway. The most used Ukrainian tanks T-64BV, has the front armor of the tower 420-450mm and hulls 265mm against APF, other most owned tanks T-72Ural, M84 / T-72A / T-72M1 with Contact 1 will reach similar levels. This means that the 3BM-21M with a penetration of 480mm is able to pierce them from the front, as well as probably the front of the hull of the most captured tanks, T-72B with contact 1, so it is probably able to frontally front most Ukrainian tanks. The last Soviet ammunition 3BM-36 115mm then frontally pierces the turet T-72M / M1 / ​​M84 / Ural without Konakt 1 and maybe a hull with Contact 1 at T-72M / Ural / M84 and even the older ones should then pierce all Ukrainian tanks from side. Finally, the question of how and by whom the T-62 will be used. The Russian army has mobilization structures, people who have been engaged in military service are enrolled in the reserves on a voluntary basis, and they can then be called upon for large exercises, mostly with the technology they were serving. After the decommissioning of the T-62 in 2013, where one-year basic service soldiers were probably still used and not professional soldiers, they were reactivated to the largest post-Cold War military training Vostok 2018, where they were apparently assigned to the newly created reserves unit on former soldiers who served on the T -55/62. I have already seen a video from the reserve units, where the men were 35-55 years old in Ukraine, a few days back there was also a video where there was a column of T-62M and T-62MV with the Ossetian flag, information that volunteers from South Ossetia will come there, who are seeking to connect with North Ossetia in the Russian Federation, as well as volunteers from Abkhazia, have been leaking for some time, these two separatist territories operate with T-55 tanks and quite possibly there are volunteers who served on the T-55/62 in USSR, even in that video, the crew on the tanks looked quite old. It is still unclear whether their deployment should be at the front, or they will serve as backup units in the second line, or whether it is a cannonfodr in a wear war to maintain better machines and crews. From Oryx you can see how practically all the better tanks like the T-64 Bulat in various versions and the T-80 were used only in the first days of the war, as well as their best transporters BTR-3,4 and BMP-2, when they started deploy and lose T-64BV, BMP-1, BRTR-80 and better machines to save, the Russians see the same, T-80 and T-90 practically stopped appearing at the front, as well as T-72B3M, most began to grow T -72B, which is now documented the most lost, although the first half of the war was not so, but it can again mean a number of things,replacement of damaged / destroyed better tanks with T-72B for surviving crews, preferential deployment of T-72B in the wear war, where against Javelin does not matter what you deploy and T-72B can withstand what the Ukrainians shoot from tanks, or also that better tanks are for better units with better training and they will be destroyed less often, or all this together.

Fun fact reason why Poland is planning to replace Leopard 2 with K2 is because K2 need 3 men crew and that is huge , because Poland have limited men power , so havig 3000 men in 1000 tanks instead of 4000 make a diffrence .

good point, do you have a source on the ammo?

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the Tankograd site and the T-62 and T-72 field manuals. The 115mm HE round was about 2.7 kg of TNT and the 125mm HE rounds are 3.4kg of AIX2 which is more energetic. Some 115mm shells with AIX2 were produced but most of the effort in producing modern shell went towards calibers like 125mm and arty systems

HE filler size not exactly an issue as in general, the russian tanks atm are out of ATGM range (or at least Javelin 2.5km range), as well as this tanks being sent as inf support to Donetsk and Lugansk armies. LPR/DPR are better with a tank, than without, t62s also probably do not canibalize the t72 russian unit readiness/spares as much, rather than it being a "theft" issue.

Reminds me of the difference in HE shells for the M3 75 smoothbore and the 76 on the Sherman’s. The 76 HE was quite pathetic next to the 75 HE

+@@JebacPresretac101+ Javenlins can hit static targets at 4km been done multiple times.

Separatists don't exist

@@512TheWolf512 I went to uni with a Ukrainian-born Russian nationalist who worshipped Putin, they exist.

@@MaskofAgamemnon I think wildfire is saying they aren't separatists but residents of the independent Donetsk Republic.

@@danmorgan3685 Ah

@@512TheWolf512 literally 45% of the Ukrainian population are ethnic russians

That's a valid point.

Also used in Georgia. 14 years is not so long ago, and probably means they received upgrades.

Yeah but they have also been sending off the best condition t-62 from the 2008 war to those fronts, and are left with the medium grade ones.

We have heard a lot of myths and legends about the Russian army lately. 90 days ago they were supposed to be out of missiles, 60 days ago out of tanks and planes, 30 days ago out of food and professional soldiers. And hearing from the same clueless fantasy world dwellers info about the condition of the Russian reserve stockpiles kinda makes me laugh.

@@doublehelix7880 They were also supposed to be a strong & competent military and yet here we are lol.

What kind of I-DIOTS would make such a mistake!

@@All_Hail_Chael If the text originated as a hand-written note, then it's quite easy to make such a mistake.

@@bencejuhasz6459 It was a JOKE. Because D-IOTS sort of looks like I-DIOT

Not to confuse with form ID-10T

Doesn't seem to be doing them any favours. Modern warfare just doesn't need tanks like they used to.

@@MrPojopojo If the Russian and Ukrainian armies truly didn't need tanks they would have stopped using them LONG ago. But from what we see tanks are still extremely important for offensives and counter offensives.

@@MrPojopojo bro there is a differnce in how the war are fought ininitial days vs like whts hapning right now

@@Frenchfrys17 they aren't useless, but the days of using them as a main strike force are long gone, they are helpless without infantry, artillery, even air support at this point. One guy with a tube can take them out without even keeping on target.

@@fotina45 Explain how this affects what I said at all. What is the difference other than one side not having many modern armored anymore thus reducing their effectiveness even further.

Yeah, that had me doubting for a second there

BDD is not equiviliant to Stillbrew,. BDD works on different principles and is very much different in it's construction.

@@r.gilman4261 both systems use composite appliqué with a rubber or similar elastic material to produce a shattering effect in the projectile, so, I’d say they are similar. And far more comparative than Chobham which is and entirely different system.

@@nickbrenchley5430 The Rubber in the Stillbrew package is elastic, but this has nothing to do with how it works as the rubber is tightly confined (this is not a NERA package). Polyurethane resin is not elastic as used in BDD. The mechnisim for BDD to defeat HEAT is by having the urethane resin flow into the Jet thereby disrupting it. Therefore both protection schemes (BDD and Stillbrew) work differently.

@@r.gilman4261 Both materials are Elastomers though.

This is true. When I was deployed to Germany in the 80s, we expected to fight mostly T-62s. We also trained to fight against T-72s but didn't expect many T-64s. I think by that time we knew that the T-64 was not going to be produced in significant numbers.

What were the CIA values for the rounds, and in what way were they off the mark (did they think the round was worse or better than its real performance)?

@@xmlthegreat I dont have the values for the CIA as to what they thought it was, but they were lower then what they were actually

@@xmlthegreat they highly overestimated it.

@Tom Vobbe source?

T-62s are meant for the rear not the Frontlines. So your point is moot

I don't see how that's at all related.

@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 Try reading that again. He's talking about supplies of parts on the international black market. There is no mention of the tactical deployment of the T-62 in Ukraine.

I was thinking the same. Not that we can prove it either way, but a chunk of the video seemed to just make a guess and then treat it as fact when this argument could also be true. In fact, another possibility is that many of the T-62s in storage were stripped for parts to make use the ones delivered to Syria recently were in top shape and had a good supply of spares.

Ukraine recently stole a T-72 so that's something.

Well, now you can easily buy in darknet Javelin, NLAW, etc missiles...

Before the war, Ukraine was reported by western main sewer media as being among the most corrupt countries in the world. I'm sure that this has only gotten worse as the UkroNazi military collapses with the regime soon to follow and the rats seek lifelines into the welcoming arms of the EU, who deserve to host these vermin.

The Russian War ministry should buy their own parts on ebay. Unless USA buys them first to win the war.

@@Mr_MikeB Empty tubes, lol.

In the high end airsoft scene half the guys are using Russian gear and NVGs that probably should have stayed in their units

People still use T-55? Who? 🤔

Personally my worry levels would max out with just one of any tank being thrown at me.

@@simoc24 some african countrys

@@simoc24 Pakistani T-55 with T-72 electronic but cheap and used against shitty rebel millitia

I'd be more worried about whatever is able to throw those things

DPR and LNR are put right on the front to save regular Russian troops!

And those t-62m seems to be given to mobilized reservist of dpr and lpr army, which at the beginning they many have mosin and van as main weapons and vehicles

But those forces are sent to the front lines as cannon fodder.

@@Carewolf What cannon fodder when there's not much active head to head combat is going on? Most of war right now are artillery duels, and LDPR conscripts definitely aren't ones who can operate them.

DPR and LPR are at the front, they are Russia's meatshield nobody back home gives a fuck about.

agree 💯 Particularly relevant in Ukraine

but why is the real reason, Russia is no where near running out of T72/80/90 variants.. They've lost only a tiny fraction of the first one technically. Something tells me a lot more d!ckwagging dances with nato on the Baltic, which means building a gigantic ball of potent armour among other things there, while the T62s are fine for the now more or less wrung out Ukrainian forces.

@@anasevi9456 I believe he explained it earlier in the video, while Russia has a lot of t-72 tanks many of them have been sitting in storage which left them exposed to corrupt members of the military who stripped important parts from them to sell to other countries for a profit. Since not many countries use the T-62 anymore their parts arent as valuable to sell which means the T-62's that have been put in storage are mostly operational which would allow Russia to quickly deploy them to fill in gaps in Russian or Speratist armored forces in Ukraine

@@pell9538 🤐 fair point, i just didnt realise why such an old tank would be taken out of mothballs. I don't thrust the usual suspects on either side, and your comment about corruption is prob half true, but your comment about why a T-62 is getting a second life is likely on the mark. I just know our leaders are going through the motions like a bunch of headless roosters.

@@anasevi9456 Tanks are expensive to operate. Russia's prewar operational tank fleet was about 2800 machines in total. They sent 2100 of these into Ukraine, of which we have photographic evidence of the loss of 789 machines now. The majority of these are T-72. They don't have many T-90 of any type in inventory and exceptionally few have even been spotted in Ukraine. The Indian army operates vastly more T-90s than the Russian army does. They don't seem to have many T-80s either, despite allegedly vast production quantities that should have allowed them to easily replace all T-72s in service. The Ukrainians don't seem very "wrung out" seeing as they're still pushing Russian forces back slowly and have managed to continue to blunt all efforts at serious assaults to regain ground. I think they may have trouble regaining their Pre-2014 boarders as Crimea is historically difficult to assault from any direction, but I see no reason they'd fail to regain their pre-2022 boarders at this point, outside of some kind of dramatic and severe screw up, or the Russians suddenly finding very competent commanders now that most of the dumb ones are dead.

thank you!

T-62 are modernized and have digital gun stabilization, ballistic computer, night vision, additional ERA armor. You need really modern staff to fight against them.

It has a 155mm gun that can fire 1000 yards and AAA. Works in tandem with artillery and drone protection.

@@peceed sorry but you are wrong most of rhe tech are from the 70s they were put in reseve in early 1980s

@@peceed Dude, there is no single piece you could call "digital" in this tank. I think they have manual input of the ballistic data for which there could be some prehistoric calculator. It does not act any remotely close to the digital FCSs like the pieces used in the third-generation tanks. The sole reason Soviets and Russians keep it around is you can fix it with a hammer and a prybar.

@@peceed why you gassing Russia up? Does t62s might as well be made out of paper mache hell a regular RPG 7 could pierce through that paper thin armor

These are not even the 125mm used in several variants, lengths according to different types of charging machines, which are then able to shoot longer to charge the original cannon or then a new type of cannon.

On the other hand you get the opportunity to use the stockpile of 115mm shells that no other russian tank fires. A stockpile that is probably nearing expiration date so the moment to use it is now.

@@stoyantodorov2133 judging by the artillery volume and fires that Russia is currently using against the Ukrainians, unguided munitions are not the problem. It’s the act of moving munitions to the front that is Russia’s issue.

And the T62 is not in production anymore so spare parts will be even harder to get .

@@Flamechr Which specifically? You mean the tracks, the wheels, the torsion bars, the gear box that shares with the most manufactured tank platform on the planet T-55? The T-62 then uses either a modernized or new engine, which also shares a large part of the component base of the T-55 engine, as well as ammunition, when a more modern version was introduced sometime around 2000, so there will probably be more parts than on the T-72 , T-80, T-90, which have been used much more intensively in the last 40 years, as well as ammunition.In the videos you can see how the Ukrainians are pulling types of ammunition from Russian tanks, which ceased to be produced in the 1980s, so even with the 125 mm they still evidently did not fully shoot into the post-USSR types produced.

i believe polish supplied t-72m1s had upgrades to commander and gunner sights, modernized fcs, modernized digital communications, military gbs etc although if i remember correctly like 75% of the polish supplied t72s had those upgrades

@@deriksalas5501 nope. We modernized only part of them to PT-91 Twardy standard, the only upgrade other ones got was active to passive NV.

@@deriksalas5501 They have only modernized engines.

@@TapChanek T-72M1R standard. The PT-91 is a much more extensive upgrade of the T-72.

@@Orcawhale1 ahh, you re right, I've digged it and it turns out there was some upgrade - newer observation devices, digital comms and digital engine starting system. That still not includes FCS or gun stabilisation.

Since we already have video of one T62 getting hit and possibly destroyed they are definitely used on the frontlines, most likely Donbas since the Russians are throwing the separatists in there like chaff to try and grind down the Ukrainians.

Video is from the last few days, so quite recent afaik.

They're not being given to "poorly trained conscripts". They're being given to reservist volunteers, or whatever term you want to use, who trained on the T-62M many years ago. Plonk one in front of them, give them a few hours to refresh their memories, and you have a fully operational and crewed MBT.

@@Crosshair84 Yeah, we've all seen the quality of Russian and bandit fiefdom tankers over the last few months. Poorly trained is a level only reached by their exceptional units, the rest is worse.

Russia and sepraratist captured over 200 Ukraine tanks, this is not for separatist.

do you have a source for this?

@@LooWa01 Yes, but I have to dig up. There was a long debate on a HUN forum many things. While I have a model to calculate idealized cases. This is the output of the Pk calculation compared with a US TRADOC stuff about T-62 and a firing range data of the Chieftain tank. TRADOC, you can find the S shaped curve about T-62. My calculation with two different dispersion values. i.imgur.com/OavsDQM.png I used the method to estimate the mil CEP value of many tanks. For the Chally 1 I got ~0.23 mil. Based on such data like this. i.imgur.com/CGSFSQj.png The model calculating the Pk uses a circle size target to determine the hit / miss. i.imgur.com/Bcl3nRC.png There is a visualization way which needs manual calculation but it works quite well. Visual representation of 10x100 shots with 0.25 mil at 2000 meters with 0 aiming error. i.imgur.com/a7JiAVh.png I have also data about the early M60 era, dispersion was ~0.40 mil.

@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft thx for the answer!

Where are you getting these figures from? I have seen a test from the Slovakian army, specifically about the need to accurize the 2A46, that states the 2A46 has a 1.8 mil dispersion (or technically 0.9 mil to the right) because of the way the breech is mounted causing the entire gun to shift down and right during firing. It is only capable of putting 14% of shots within a 0.5mil circle (this is with BM15).

​@@jimmydesouza4375 ​ 0.50 mil radius = 1 m radius at 2000 m distance If I set may calculator to get in average 14 hits this circle we get this. From 5x100 shots. The average is close to 14%. i.imgur.com/BB8uQv6.png I guess there is some kind of misinterpretation regarding what means dispersion. In most case dispersion is CEP but guns have double normal (Rayleigh) distribution. This means that the total area of the dispersion is the same with normal distr. but inside the totaly area the distribution is different along the radius. Pls. show me that test to help to understand what it contains exactly.

Yeah but Russia won’t have any acces to any Rheinmetall guns or ammo.

@@kamikazekalamari Just an example

Who still use T-55? 🤔

@@simoc24 Around 40 states have them in Reserve, around 20 still use them or Type 59 Tanks.

I would like to entertain the thought that the same kind of modifications most likely would have been made if the respective nations would have procured with the T-62 instead of the T-55.

I think the relikt armour weighs to much for the base T-62 to carry so, instead they use the forward facing tureet blocks.

@@honda6353 Those T-62M are fitted with Relikt are on the sides (flanks) of the tank only.

Russia and sepraratist captured over 200 Ukraine tanks, this is not for separatist.

The Russians aren't using the Separatist Forces as rear units though, they are throwing them at the Ukrainians as literal cannon fodder.

@@ausaskar Yes, that too. For them (cannon fodder) T-62M is good enough. From the perspective of Russian authorities, naturally.

That's not what's happening at all though.

But its not happening at all like you say.

800 tanks lost, according to Oryx. Fully documented. From about 2500 the Russian had at the start of the war. Probably more lost in reality as not all of them have been documented.

given other users have atgms, it would be more useful to carry HE rounds instead for urban fighting

Soviet doctrine involved the tanks forming a base of fire for other formations performing thier roles (ie infantry crossing rivers). The ATGM was to provide standoff to do this. That's also part of why they stuck ATGMs on as much as possible as by and large only a small portion of your force is able to take part in an action so you want the rest of it able to fire. Good luck finding info on it now :D.

@@jimmydesouza4375 that at least make some sense, I wondered how much defending against attack helicopters played into it. Do you have a copy of the doctrine, got a budy who can translate Russian so doesn't need to be in English

@@grumpyguardsman6161 There's an old British Army intel officer (username combatintman) who makes custom scenarios for games like Combat Mission and I saw it from one of them. May be wrong (and the guy may be lying about who he is), but it fits. It's something I saw said by him. So no source. It's why I said good luck finding info. With all the Ukraine stuff it drowns everything else out :D

Every tank is quite vulnerable if you consider HE ammo detonation - nothing can save you. Even Abrams can't withstand that. And in Abrams armored ammo door is open 1/3 of time during shooting or more.

@@peceed there’s legit been footage of an iraqi m1 abrams which are older less advanced than U.S m1 take a direct hit after firing, with the blow out panels exploding, and the iraqi tank crew survived and got out of their disabled tank

@@deriksalas5501 Sure. But it was propellant burning, not detonation of HE shells.

@@peceed I think that’s mostly because U.S tanks dont really have dedicated anti personnel HE shells, just apfsds, heat, and canister shot if i remember correctly

@@peceed the the shell propellant is what is popping these tops.

I highly doubt the T-64 performed better than the T-72. T-64 is more cramped and had welds in the armor that were prone to breaking when hit.

@@Frenchfrys17 dad was a gunner on all 3 and that's his opinion. considering the tank crew average height was 1.68 (not a joke), it was not so bad. I myself was in the actual t-72 only once (we needed to check if damaged t-72 left in the field contained anything useful - only useful thing was booby-trapped so we had to left it there) and it was crammed for me with my 1.79, but he said it was pretty much ok, but not a nice drive. in 2014 he was pretty interested in ongoing fights as, believe it or not, like my father told me, out t-64 had a lot of 1v1 and 1v2 victories over t-72's, but for me it's crew mastership, which made the difference.

​@@pointofinterest9084 Well from a technical perspective if you compare the T-64BV to a T-72B3, the T-72 has: Better armor, better armor integrity, more vital armor coverage, less weakspots Better engine, more mobility, higher top speed, more reliable engine Better fire control system, better at shooting targets on the move, better at spotting targets, Thermals, the T-64BV doesnt have any Lower profile ammo rack, less likely to explode Multiple instances of them wiping out entire platoons of Ukrainian T-64BV's to near extninction. any many more.

@@Frenchfrys17 I'm not comparing digits vs digits. it's cool for the brain training, but not when you are in actual deep sh@t. for what I can tell you T-72 burns. T-90 burns. T-62 will burn. t-64 is not near extinction, but the problems with maintenance are big as yes, we have a lot of damaged tanks, that ready to return to the combat, but now we even rarely see russians: 90% of all combat is artillery vs artillery. what my pals say is that when they liberated a village - they saw the t-72 in range of 500m in the first time for a month - and it was left behind after mine hit it and apparently damaged the turret rotation mechanism. and that's it. p.s. when there were "multiple instances of russian t72 wiping them out in the combat" can you enlighten me? I just love people, who really enjoy stats))

@@pointofinterest9084 The main thing I am trying to mention was how poorly the T-64BV’s performed during the initial formation of the separatist republics several years ago. Most of the sources and videos of them getting destroyed are from Russian sources, as a disclaimer. But to clarify, most of them were from RPG’s instead of other tanks. Tank on tank combat is extremely rare. Speaking of which, I am baffled by the utter lack of an Air Force present to break the artillery stalemate. What happened to all the Baraktars, MiG-29’s, Su-25’s, and Mi-24’s? They seem completely absent from the war now even though my own logic would think that they would be extremely useful for picking of artillery targets.

Most of those calls are staged, so those aren't concrete proofs

If the T-62s are going to the separatists, that's less of a concern. Just grab four random dudes off the street, and you have a tank crew. (Not a very good one, but they're just there to soak up a Javelin that might have blown up a T-90 instead...)

What a coincidence

You what? That’s awesome!

and as a support for urban warfare

Using them as training units for what, exactly? They are different enough in operation from T-72s to be useless as a trainer for the latter.

@@grimwaltzman The basics are the same. If recruits kill a T-62 in training, its not much of a hit for the inventory of the unit as a loss of a T-72 would be. In any case, from interviews of the T-62 crews, they are a mix of Russian volunteers and "rebels". Tanks are not used in direct assaults, but as beefed up anti-insurgency police force or as mobile poor-mans artillery.

@@victorzvyagintsev1325 even if we assume that driver and commander preform similar tasks in both 62 and 72, what do they them do with the loader after training is complete? Do the gunners have to re-learn from 62 to 72 on the fly? I mean, I don't mind them shooting themselves in the foot with a system like that, but I doubt they are that retarded. Also apparently the 62s do make it close enough to the front to have a commercial drone drop a grenade inside a driver's hatch, so there's that.

@@grimwaltzman There are 3 MBT in service in the army(72,80,90) plus reserve or new 62, 64, 55, 14....crews have to know how to operate any of the type AND how to operate in any role(at least know how to do it). Think of T-62 as entry level airplane like L-39, used before being authorised to fly an Su-30

just to clarify, that was an example of what cud have been done by russian soldiers/officers with responsibility of the deep storages. We don't have evidence, just satellite photos of brown, dismantled tanks of various kind

That is why it went from 12000 to only 900 in mothball. The 900 mothball tank should be good for use, as they have many old tanks to serve as parts, and these old tanks are all mechanical, no computer that need to service Of course Perun is right that they would be poorly maintained. So much maintenance will be needed to bring it to battlefield and even more maintenance AT the battlefield, actual fighting time will be small

@@simoc24 you also need to account for those sent to Syria and Libya over the last five years. So you may want to cut another 200 from that.

@@terrynewsome6698 good point 👍

@@simoc24 Perun's "expertise" is limited to Call of Duty and parroting the MSM. No offence, but he had to stick to the PC games instead of analyzing matter he have no idea of.

Russia and sepraratist captured over 200 Ukraine tanks, this is not for separatist.

@@DOMINIK99013 I don’t understand what point you’re making. Capture doesn’t mean they will be used.

@@Rokaize Putin directly said western and captured weapons to separaratist, you have also couple of videos when they where giving to them or when is Z/V marking on Ukraine vehicles, so not.

@@DOMINIK99013 Well I haven’t seen any of these videos so if you have them then tell me which to look for

Well they are probs going to be given to some kind of conscripts.

Well its assumed they will go on the front. More likely they will be given to the republics and used further back. However they might be preparing the long haul.

They're not. They're going to separatists.

Hey you your a tanker now

@@nagantm441 Even if Russia isn't going to be using these tanks themselves, that doesn't change the issues I've pointed out.

They're manning them with older reservist volunteers who trained on them decades ago. That's why they are using T-62Ms in the first place, it's what the available crews know. Plonk one in front of them, give them a few hours to refresh their memories and practice things, and you now have a crewed and operational MBT.

Russian bob semple with kontakt when?

check out this special version ;) everpress.com/mhv/tank-id-chart-normandy

Russian tanks are excellent in defense, they can dig themself. And Russians are masters of defence on counter-slope.

​@@peceed - You're a clown show! You replied to me earlier that in Europe Russian tanks don't need to fire in defilade. Now you're saying that Russian tanks are great for fighting in defilade despite the fact that their shallow turrets have limited gun depression. So which is it Napolean?

The Egyptians suffered heavily because of that in 1973. Not sure if the hills and sand dunes of sinai compare to the Ukrainian forests and steppes.

@@rogerpennel1798 You have to be more specific, dear Sherlock. "in defilade" is imprecise term and you shouldn't use it. Gun depression supports "dynamic" hull-down tactic. Russian tanks can be "statically" entrenched, they have built-in plowshares.

Spot on!👍🏻

Problem is personnel is toast. Recruitment will be hard

What partisans? There are none to be seen. The main opponent is Ukrainian national guard that has no tanks and few javelins in light infantry role. Solution to defend against these guys for out numbered DPR forces was to simply add tank company to each BTG. How would UA light infantry attack enemy infantry supported by artillery and tanks????

In this conflict partisans would likely be sporting NLAWs. Oddly its lack of autoloader would help crew survivability as the tank is less likely to brew up at least.

@@MrEddieLomax from what I heard, frontline units at Luhansk are complaining that they do not have modern AT rockets, that only elites up Charkov and Kyjiv have them. This might have been remedied, but I find it unlikely that partisans will have advanced western equipment. Old soviet era stuff nicked from warehouses or at best some more modern stuff stolen from Russians. Logistics of guerilla warfare is a nightmare and supplying or resupplying them behind enemy lines is a luxury Ukraine just cannot afford right now.

They just stretched a T-55 hull and put a new gun in it, compare that with the T-64 which was a purpose built machine with its composite armour, autoloader etc.

@@ausaskar That’s irrelevant. T62 was still the first tank mass produced with a smoothbore gun. This set the foundation for almost all mbts after. Another word for revolutionary is trailblazing. A tank setting a new standard for main guns is trailblazing. T64 was revolutionary too, but in that circumstance it was due to the composite armor which it utilized. The first tank mass produced with such armor.

@@ausaskar It’s like saying the SVT-40 can’t be revolutionary because it’s based on the SVT-38. Or like saying the M1 Garand wasn’t revolutionary because the Garand m1926 came first. It was the SVT-40 the Germans copied. It was the SVT-40 that inspired some nations to adopt semi-auto main battle rifles. Same goes for the M1 Garand. Many nations copied the concept, and saw an implementation of a tactic which might otherwise not occur, or be greatly delayed. I know that the Mondragon was technically the first auto-loading main service rifle, but it’s impact was far more limited compared to later semi-autos. It took far more exposure to get the concept accepted. Very different from the M1 Garand, SVT-40, or back to the main subject, the T62.

Russia depends on components from EU, the idea that they could make anything as sophisticated as a clone of MTOW is completely off.

@@NeuroScientician well not now of course. But give it to the Chinese for a decade and all bets are off. Kinda like their stealth fighter programs starting with pieces from a shot down Nighthawk.

@@NeuroScientician Doesn't need to be sophisticated as long as it will work. Also give a year or two and China will be rocking stuff like that if they aren't already. Same goes for needed components they will supply them to Russia.

@@sagatlike3393 no electronics or optics or software is being made in Russia, it's all from EU and the US. Everything that is not made of bent sheet metal is from EU. You cannot 'just start making it' for the same reason why Kenya cannot just start a space program. There is no history of production Russians can build on. China is about the same. No high-end stuff is made there, high-end components are brought from elsewhere and put together in China, but none of it originates there. That's why Russian army buys components from the US and not China. There are few cool videos of 'unboxing' of captured Russian drones, you can see clearly what they are made of. Same with missile warheads.

@@NeuroScientician Greatly exaggerated, but hey as long as it makes You sleep at night, chinese and russians live in poophouses.

Russia and sepraratist captured over 200 Ukraine tanks, this is not for separatist.

If the Russians are arming separatists with Moisin-Nagant rifles I doubt Russia will dedicate much to their maintenance. So if the separatists can't maintain them they will become more donor vehicles towed away by Ukrainian farmers.

No, they are running out of tanks, it's embarrassing

@@AedeusExpert, as I see it.

Personally I love it when children of ukrainian conscripts become orphans

There was a deep modernized version in 2018, it was earmarked for logistical troops, I seen a news segment on Russian TV, according to that the tank was equipped with a thermal sight. About the ammo, I have wondered about that, also with the ammo the Ukrainians use for there T64, it's all ancient stuff by now, they stopped producing it in the 80's.

I'd be more worried of those 90k handheld anti-tank weapons of which every single one is capable of takin out a T-62.

@@Ivzu If they have batteries and are used properly. As a support weapon T62 is pretty good, just dont use it in first line aggressively. I think Ukraine would be happy to have a few hundreds of these right now.

@@Ivzu yes but they are all capable of taking out a t90m as well, and both of them are effective as direct fire support for infantry for security in rear areas and convoys etc or defensively on quiet areas of the front line. Not every ukranian even has a javelin and not everything a tank shoots at is a tank.

Or a t-80, t-72, t-64, or t-82. Not exactly a walk over to say the least.

@@username_3715 yeah but when a rpg 7 or at4 can do the job and that can be found in every squad. I think a t-62 is a death trap at that point.

For the oligarchs, the Russian army is merely another piggy bank to smash for yacht money.

That is what they try to make you believe in the West...

@@Fjodor.Tabularasa I've seen the tanks being serviced. You can only try and media gas light so much. Who am I gonna believe; some shill in KZfaq comments or my own eyes?

@@MaskofAgamemnon so you were in the Russian army and have first hand experience? I think not. Your just another nobody that parrots the Western propaganda claims. You Sir, know nothing, and that's fine by me, cheers.

What do you base the quality of training on?

From my understanding according to U.S 'news' reported combat data (real reliable I know) the main cause of death for Russian tankers has been as a result of anti-tank weapons hitting the autoloader, so that might be the actual reason their bringing these out, to try and get around this issue.

@@Heartrose7 Do You mean ammo cook off?

@@Heartrose7 The autolader is not the main cause, but the loose ammo for n the turret which is responsible for most cookoffs, but javelin and Nlaws do directly hit the carousel and the loose ammo.

@@Heartrose7 It's not the autoloader itself, but having an autoloader means all the ammo is stored in the turret with the autoloader. Along with the crew, of course. :( When an ATGM penetrates the turret, usually from the top, it sets off one or more of the tank rounds, leading to a chain reaction - all the rounds go off and the turret blows off in a huge explosion. Modern Western tanks have the ammo stored in a "bustle" on the rear of the turret. It's behind a blast door that's opened only at the moment the human loader reaches for it to load the gun. 1950s Western tanks had ammo in the turret even with a human loader.

@@EpicThe112 I think that's what they are referring to, but the just say "autoloader", however as a commenter has pointed out in another of my comments, it's more likely where the autoloader ammo is stored that's the problem. As it's "stored under the turret no blow out panels" - Dominik Obora.

That is the problem for the T62 which got its latest update in 1980 is against AT4 Nlaw javalin and carl gustav and Law. These at weapons can easily destroy the T62. Besides that javalin out range the T62

No.

Greatly? It was more spacious, so good for crew and more mobile probably, but much bigger target. The armor or gun were no better, maybe it had better optics, electronics and so on, but that is better on all western tanks in general. Still the T-62 can probably destroy M60 from 2km or more.

LOL, no, are you kidding me? I would say latest M-60 maybe was even with T-62. I still would think with equal crew T-62 was more lethal. It had way better gun. Way.

@@tomk3732 Keep on telling yourself that, smart people know that the M60A3 TTS has a thermal sight, which is a massive agvantage and something crap like the T-62M does not have!

They were rolling T-34/85's through red square during their last big pep-rally.

@@jmrichards5910 That's nostalgia more than the desperation I'm anticipating.

Why would they?

@@nagantm441 Because they'll keep losing and keep refusing to face their inadequacy because Russia is a nation allegeric to embarrassment.

I wonder if there are still any T-55s in storage. They have plenty of T-72s still and losses are now very low. So no issues for Russia.

You are assuming the T-62s are being brought out to replace *Russian* losses and not being given to militia units and other troops who would benefit from having any tank.

Drawing up as many tanks as possible, even to be used as disposable APC's isn't too bad of an idea. If they were just going to sit in storage, may as well get some use out of them.

@@danmorgan3685 I guess they are going to pull LPR/DPR troops out of the line to form tank units eh?

@@FM4AMGV Probably should go get old men and give them swords for Banzai charges. Might as well get some use out of them.

@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 They might. You train enough from a battalion to form a tank company and use them for infantry support.

in ww2 it was the ussr, which included many more countries....especially Ukraine, which took 10 out of 25 million casaulties of the ussr. Also the ussr was backed by the USA and didn't need to produce fency stuff like radios.... or food. All that stuff was provided,as the ussr focused on tank production and throwing man into the meatgrinder. At least the second thing didn't changed much. Russian elites never had an issue to sacrifice millions of their own people

expertise level analysis has been detected 🤣

@@riebenzahl-524 You: "Also the ussr was backed by the USA and didn't need to produce fency stuff like radios.... or food" Wikipedia: "Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as other observers of the food commodities markets, warned of a collapse in food supply and price increases". What is the problem? The US cannot compensate food supplies from Russia and Ukraine (were together in the USSR)? Most likely it's something else. It's just that your level of knowledge on this issue is not higher than 🐏 has. The volume of food supplies from the US was no higher than from Mongolia.

@@victorv7654 oh boy....🤦🏼‍♂️ The USSR was barely able to produce enough grain even after the war and even required supply from the US in the 50s, thanks to Stalins failed agriculture planning. But yeah, now everything is running according to Führer Putins plan 👍

Tell that to Mr. Kinzhal, Mr. Kaliber, Mr. Iskander, Mr. Avangard, Mr. Oniks, TOS, world class air defense complexes S-300, S-400, Pantsir, Buk, and fifth gen fighter SU-57 seeing combat in Ukraine. NATO is pissing in its pants.

Russia is winning.

Then why are the Russians killing and wounding 1000 ukrops a day?

The worse equipment is generally handed to the separatists, the DPR and LPR armed forces. Do not forget this is a two sided conflict too; there are also signs of the Ukrainian armed forces frequently using outdated equipment e.g. the Maxim machine-gun.

This war and the collapse of Afghanistan provide polar examples of the simple fact that despite all our technology, morale is still king of the battlefield.

@@HHVVNN Yes, but Ukraine never claimed to be a superpower on par with Nato.