T-62M Manual (in Russian)

[John Kettler]

Since I believe this may have applicability to CMx2, I'm posting it here, but I'm pretty sure that it's CMA relevant as well. The T-62M is evidently more than just a T-62 with horseshoe shaped armor added to the turret, but I don't know what those differences might be. One that would make sense is a beefed up suspension to take the additional weight. There might also be a stronger engine and drive train in order to maintain previous mobility levels, but if track width didn't also increase, then ground pressure would increase and thus potentially impede mobility when operating in mud and such. There is, of course, an absolute total tank width limit imposed my relative narrow Russian railroad tunnels. Am hoping Haiduk, IMHO or one of our other Russophone colleagues can shed some light on what makes a T-62M a whole different model of the T-62.

https://www.facebook.com/alexey.tyuzhin.7/media_set?set=a.3413783268671987&type=3

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bufo]

I recommend you this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/t-62-main-battle-tank-1965-2005

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, John Kettler said:

The T-62M is evidently more than just a T-62 with horseshoe shaped armor added to the turret, but I don't know what those differences might be.

Those are NERA modules on the turret & also the glacis:

This is the virtually identical glacis module from a. T-55 (this type received broadly similar upgrades at the same time, to become the T-55M).

The T-55M & T-62M also received new day/night sights with laser rangefinder granting the ability to fire TLATGMs.

Good article on the T-62 here:

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

Edited August 12, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MikeyD]

I get the impression if T62 or T72 had been 'our' tank instead of the Russians' it would have been touted as the best thing since sliced bread.

I don't know if CMSF2 adequately models the improved T62M armor. The problem with  judging the improvement is the armor's so seriously overmatched by the Abrams sabot round that there's no discernible difference. I recall in CMSF1 T62M was ranked above base-level T72 but I think CMSF2 dropped the very earliest t72 type..

[John Kettler]

Sgt.Squarehead

Your characterization of that monograph masquerading as an article is about on par with calling War and Peace an overgrown novella of some small merit! Read that microtype (got so swept up in the piece that I forgot to go to higher mag) until my eyes couldn't handle it and my brain broke from treadhead info overload, yet only got as far as the Commander's station. The NERA was news to me, and even brother George (20 yrs as Army Scout) was shocked to learn the Leopard 1 lacked gun stabilization. How bizarre not to fit one of the major tank engineering developments of the century!  Posted out link to Alexei Tyuzhin's OP on FB. Now, of course, I'm going to have to see what else is on that. If the T-62 article was a fair sample, I'm doomed!

MikeyD,

True, for such ballyhoo would've been used to drive FMS. Appreciate insights on T-62M modeling in CMSF series. Any idea in whether this critter is in CMA. Afghanistan is where I first saw imagery of the T-62M, and at the time, it was being described in Jane's Defence Review as being a solid chunk of armor, not what it really was.  

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Bufo]

7 hours ago, John Kettler said:

the Leopard 1 lacked gun stabilization

Like the T-62, the Leopard 1 had many variations. Only the original Leopard 1 lacked the stabilization. The last one being manufactured in February 1970. All the subsequent models got it after.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Indeed.....By the time the T-62M took the field it would have found itself facing the Leopard 1A5, a much more capable type.

22 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I get the impression if T62 or T72 had been 'our' tank instead of the Russians' it would have been touted as the best thing since sliced bread.

 I largely blame the advanced, but IMHO overrated, T-64 for the T-62's lack of notoriety.....It was a good tank, if a bit cramped, but it was also fundamentally of an earlier generation (at least until the T-62M upgrades).

The T-72 is the T-55 of the new age.....A baseline tank, add extras according to your personal taste and budget.  If you are not fighting NATO it's more than good enough (assuming your opponent doesn't have them too, which he probably will).

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MikeyD]

Russia and the US had been working concurrently on both APFSDS technology, smooth bore guns and composite armor in the 1950s (One has to wonder how much of an advantage Russia gained from espionage). The difference was they fielded the new technology while we didn't. I read somewhere that T62's gun had been purpose-designed to pierce a Centurion bow at 1000m

NATO had to jump through a lot of hoops to counter T64/T72/T80. Retire their 90mm gun tanks, retire their 105mm gun tanks, rethink the entire concept of vehicle armor. They redesigned the TOW warhead twice over to increase effectiveness then gave up and went for an overhead burst platter charge warhead instead. T64 was fielded eighteen(?) years before M1 Abrams, T72 was eleven(?) years before.  And even Abrams needed to quickly replace its main gun and beef up its frontal turret armor.