6:09 Proof that God is a Russian and guides everyone's artillery

Hey, just wanted to say thank you for your well made videos, they really interested me and got me to buy Combat Mission: Black Sea, I Hope you are able to continue your work and passion!

Damn, these lads surely are quite accurate with their rifles and Bren gun, also i would like to see a comparison of a Soviet equivalent.

Soviet ppsh squad basically

is that a video game? and if so what's it called

So the pipe rifle from fallout is only effective at under 100m. Good to know 😂

Who needs soviet stamped metal when the British stamped metal was probably cheaper and more deadly.

Well, the T-62 did more than well during the war between Iraq and Iran during for instance the battle at Operation Nasr where mainly Iraqi T-62s and some T-72s counting to about 100-150 stopped an Iranian advance of 300 Chieftains and M-60 tanks. The Iranians lost more than 200 tanks and the Iraqis about 50 of which some could be recovered and repaired while the Iranian tanks of any worth were given often to Jordan since they used western equipment and had a good relation with Iraq. The British army, which at the time had a cordial relation with Iraq, learned of the problems with the Chieftain and its problem during the war where inadequate armour against apfsds and a horrible engine cast it in poor light. The T-62, however, was more reliable and thanks to its 115 apfsds was able to knock out whatever the Iranians could muster at the time. However, the failure of the Iranians at said battle had a multitude of factors of which difficult terrain, poor leadership, the effects of the revolution, poor maintenance, poor reconnaisance and infantry support are some of the reasons.

Good tank👍

Best bmp!👍😸

Хороший обзор на танк в игре👍

Normal👌

RIP to all the pixletruppen who’ve got shredded in the editor for our enjoyment. 😔

There is a kinda nice tank sim called Steel Beasts that revolves arround the M60 and T-62 and their service in Angola, Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war. It is kinda interesting the point you made about the optics since the version of the T-62 that appears in that game is the early 1972 variant. Having played a bit on both, while the M 60 does have some better periscopes, the thing that in my opinion makes the actual difference is that while the M60 has a coincidence rangefinder operated by the commander, the T-62 only has one of those stadimetric sights.

Good tank t34

Wait till they see the Sherman Wumbo

Nice😊

Easy Abramchik

Tbf to the t-62 egyptian ones proved effective agianst idf m60a1 during the yom kippur war with nearly a 1:1 kill rate and iraqi ones mopped the floor with iranian m60a1 and chefitian mk4 during operation naser and during much of the iran-iraq war in general The syrian army at the start of the yom kippur war was plagued by nearly a decade of purges the lack of accopminy recon and infantry assets is problly what lead the deafet of syria during in the vally of tears Also are you a developer if so any plans on adding modules to cmcw

Это легко!😊

I was just searching for videos on T62 vs T72 yesterday😂😂😂

I was just searching for videos on T62 vs T72 yesterday😂😂😂

I think a good way of thinking about the T-62 in a modern context is it's like the Leopard 1 only it wasn't designed with the same ideology in mind. The Leopard was developed right around the time infantry AT weapons were getting so good it was almost impossible to armour a tank well enough to be relatively well protected - so instead, anticipating that it'll not even be able to withstand a single hit, it favors mobility and firepower. A glass cannon on roller skates. The T-62 finds itself in a similar position, only it lacks the mobility. It is just a glass cannon. But that shouldn't mean it can be taken lightly. Oh sure a Challenger or an Abrams is going to laugh at the T-62's armament, even from a side shot, but the Warrior and Bradley behind it are probably far less confident. A 115mm gun is still a 115mm gun, and if you're not carrying 70 tons of armour around, it's a very credible threat. APCs, Humvees and other jeep-likes, trucks and such, they'll all still be vulnerable. And while the T-62 might not last once it's given it's position away, it's so cheap, ubiquitous, and thus expendable, that it only needs to nail something like a TOW-humvee to have traded well. Similarly, it can be used as bait. Given it's inability to deal with NATO heavy armour, it is very tempting to go tank hunting with tanks. However, the AT 14 is far more deadly to NATO armour and it is not unlikely that a Syrian force equipped with T62s might also have a few Kornets on hand. One could easily get carried away hunting obsolete soviet armour and lose a tank. Problem is, the Syrians can afford to lose 3 or 4 tanks like that, can you afford to lose even 1?

Guys hes making a joke with the 200% spotting chance lol

16:25 I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. the T-62 was also widely used in the Iran-Iraq war, and it tended to be evenly matched against Iran's M60s and Chieftains, with kill ratios instead being decided by what dictates kill ratios in the vast majority of real life engagements: overall tactical tendencies and training competency, tactics and competency of local commanding officers, dynamics of force ratios and positions, and dynamics of local terrain both foreseen and unforeseen. owing to this, I think a better assessment is that in engagements in which the T-62 did very poorly against M60s, it isn't really useful to point to characteristics of the T-62 or M60 in comparison to one another to assign blame for what happened, but instead to assign the deciding factors to what they have been in other engagements involving the same tanks against one another. I don't think the valley of tears would have went differently if you switched which tanks which sides operated.

God I love that you do this. This is the stuff I would waste HOURS trying to do in CM but I was never good enough at the map editor. Like, I wanted to play the game, but I also wanted to ask questions like "in Shock Force, how many T-55s can a single Abrams manage to kill on a decently sized map with realistic terrain features." Answer: Short of a lucky shot, a lot. I did one at night and took out 9 with a single M1.

Good vid, is it crazy to think how long we fought in steel helmets before switching to fibres. ;p

8:30 it's interesting how different game's level and philosophies of modelling vehicle penetrations can change how and why a vulnerable vehicle ends up as such. I play a lot of GHPC, which is a tank sim set in '85 Fulda, and the spot highlighted is actually the most survivable part of the tank to incur a real penetration, despite the fact that it's the location of the loader's ready rack, meaning that other racks will be depleted and cleared out to keep it full and thus hazardous. this is because it is a very well designed wet rack, to the extent that it will often prevent detonation even if the penetration far exceeds marginal; it even has a habit of neutering I-TOWs, which have HEAT warheads that reliably penetrate the composite armor of a T-80B, much less the puny 100MM RHA UFP of the T-62. CM's exact level of fidelity feels like the least generous environment the T-62 could find itself in; most of the assets to survivability it's got are at a level of detail a bit beyond what CM tries to capture, and if I had to guess why this spot is so bad, I would bet that it's because instead of seeing a hard-to-ignite and spall-catching diesel fuel tank followed up by a second diesel tank shaped as a wet rack for ammunition, CM simply sees a fuel tank, second fuel tank, and ammo rack. as such, instead of seeing an explosion risk with two well-designed mitigating assets in front of and partially surrounding it, CM sees three sensitive explosion hazards all in a line and in close contact with one another I don't really see this as a flaw of CM, which is about the level of the fidelity I think a game of its genre and scope should aim for, but it does seem to have a cascade effect for designs which would already have middling survivability if rendered with perfect 1:1 accuracy at an infinite level of detail, as most of simplifications in CM end up removing what lifelines the vehicle actually had

I wouldn't want to be hit with one of those death sticks.

Still waiting for Black Sea to port in all the Cold War vehicles for realism.

I mainly use T-62’s for ambush role in QB in CMSF2, Mostly 2-3 tanks in game with high veterancy. But the Syrian factions main weapon is the RPG and AT’s, if you want to win a tank battle in that game, you have to degrade nato weaponry and destroy infantry support, The T-62’s will not be blind if you move them slowly atleast in my observation.

Had the pleasure of hearing a tory of a now Israeli citizen who was an officer int soviet army artillery during the border conflict with China. A then new and secret T-62 suffered a mobility kill in early an engagement and was stuck in the middle of a frozen lake probably observed by the Chinese. The guy was given a fire mission to evaporate the tank and everything around it with his unit's BM-21s to prevent it from falling to the enemie's hands.

Fresh hapless video on the weekend is a lovely gift

I love these videos, especially on CW and modern equipment! Keep em coming!

Why is the T-62's agility so bad? The T-55, T-62, and T-72 are generally known to be somewhat agile in forward gear given their relatively low weight according to the Tank Museum. Also it's weird that in CM the beam riding missiles loft up and then come down towards the target, as barrel launched beam riders they should fly perfectly straight all things considered.

12:20 there is also a composite plate on the upper front plate

The T62 (and T55) with the laser RF can absolutely handle the M48 and early M60 with coincidence RF at longer ranges. The laser RF lets the T62 start getting hits while the American tanks are in their ‘one short, one long, fire for effect’ ranging.

Fun fact: the T-62 is the unloved stepchild of the Russian tank fleet. Material science advancements produced a 100mm APFSDS round for the T-55 with as much punch at the T-62's 115mm APFSDS. It kind of fell by the wayside in terms of upgrades.

there is a nice simulator made by graviteam a while back where you get to play around inside one of these pitted against iranian chieftains and m60s , oh and also south african oliphants or whatever the correct name is

20% chance to spot a target with one tank translates to (4/5)^10 chance to spot the target with 10 tanks. That is a chance of 89.26%.

Another AFV recognition item is usually that the T-62 has it's bore evacuator / fume extractor half way along the gun barrel, whereas the T-55's is near the muzzle.

10 tanks each with a 20% chance of spotting doesn't equal a 200% chance it equals a 90% chance.

Amazing and informative videos as always, great work. You got me into combat mission a few years back, and I've been playing ever since. But i do have one question, whats your setup? Both for your PC specs and for your settings, cause i used to struggle with getting my game to look as good on my laptop, having recently upgraded to a beastly PC i wanna try and get it looking as decent as it can

regarding the spotting, i did a lot of 500 ish sample spotting tests to see what was going on with cmcw spotting, on the t62 specifically, the gunner and driver spots as you would expect and not significantly different than other tanks, m60 included, its the commander cupola that was the problem, it refuses to spot at longer range than 900 meters and does so as a poor speed, what is wierder is the t64a, which is supposed to have a similar cupola, doesnt have this problem and happily spot pass 2000 meters. After some more testing i came to the conclusion that CM generalized spotting ability based on "tiers", and that "tier" is usually determined by the night vision optic (so m60 passive actually spot at longer range than base m60 even though their daysight is identical), and the t62 just have the shortest end of the shaft because it has the worse NV optic ingame. This is worsened by the fact that, as a trend, soviet tanks tend to spot equal if not slightly better at 1500+ ranges compared to NATO, but are significantly worse at shorter ranges, so getting closer only decreases your chance of spotting first with the t62, not more, you really have to be careful to stay within the engagement band sweet spot with t62 (1800m) and unbutton them at all times, and feed them as much c2 as possible.

I´m new to Combat Mission: so thanks for your Vids. They really help.

FM- what number? I need it.

Great video but I disagree on them being "functionally obsolete" @3:51 They are second line vehicles that can (literally) can still perform all of the 'functions' required of a MBT on the battlefield and thus by definition are not so.

About the T-62 it was as you said a stop gap design, thus once the soviets received the far superior T-64 and T-72 the T-62 was quickly pushed into a infantry support role which it fills to today. This role is also reflected in CMCW with the tank carrying 22 HE shells, the tank is also mainly seen in Motor Rifle Regiments and not Mechanized or Tank Regiments after the introduction of the superior T-64 which also goes to show its main role not being tank on tank engagments anymore.

Oooh! I didn't know about the re-acquiring problem from the auto-ejector. Explains the poor rate of fire they tend to achieve. I do enjoy using the 'lower tier' of tanks in the CM games, with the Motor Rifle Division kitted out with BMP-1P and T-62(1975) being a personal favourite. I think the opponents appreciate it, even when I win, because I do leave piles of scrap metal behind on the way to the furthest objective!