Combat Mission Units: T-62

[@Euan_Miller43]

T-62’s in CMSF2, their sole purpose being to provide a crazy tank kill count on the final screen of any NATO campaign

[@larsdejong7396]

@@Euan_Miller43 That's true, unfortunately. US VS Syria is just seal clubbing in general. :P Imagine being build in the 60's, and being forced to fight stuff 20 years younger than you.

[@OperatorMax1993]

​@@larsdejong7396 along with being upgraded multiple times (like the T-55, T-72, T-80 and T-90)

[@larsdejong7396]

@@OperatorMax1993 Every tanks gets upgrades. Not sure what your point is.

[@d.c.6065]

The T-62 has poor spotting ability, you say? [Laughs in Deathride to Schweben]

[@whya2ndaccount]

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.

[@neverloseyuorrobux166]

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.

[@larsdejong7396]

"infantry support" refers to shooting at anything which the infantry might come up against. That "anything" includes tanks. The T-62 stayed in service because the massive size of the red army made it very difficult to discard equipment.

[@neverloseyuorrobux166]

@@larsdejong7396 Yeah thats why it has APFSDS shells, but you can clearly see what i meant was engaging light armoured APCs, entrenched infantry and bunker, like it is currently used in Ukraine where tank on tank combat is very rare.

[@larsdejong7396]

@@neverloseyuorrobux166 It is used in that way in Ukraine because it is obsolete, not because it was the design intent. Composite armor and thermals didn't exist at the time, that's why it wasn't fitted. It wasn't a deliberate choice.

[@neverloseyuorrobux166]

@@larsdejong7396 I never said it was the design intent? I said it was how the Soviets planned to use it in most scenarios shown in CMCW.

[@larsdejong7396]

@@neverloseyuorrobux166 If you say that something is "meant to" do something, then you are implying design intent. The T-62 is an mbt, it's meant to be multi-purpose. Also, I think you are confusing shooting at infantry with infantry support. But nevermind.

[@statstats3724]

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!

[@heinzriemann3213]

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%.

[@sirfanatical8763]

genius

[@gareththompson2708]

I also just loaded up CMA to see what kind of T-62s it has. And it has exactly the same T-62s as CMCW, the T-62(1972) and the T-62(1975). That's not surprising, since it's the same army in the same time period as CMCW. I was expecting there to be a T-62M as well though, since I was sure I had seen some before. But even setting the date as late as 1989 in the editor doesn't make T-62Ms available. What I recalled seeing before were apparently T-55Ms. Edit: The T-62M *is* in CMA. It's just in the guards tank company, which I didn't think to check at first.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Good shout, I always forget about CMA.

[@d.c.6065]

CM:A supremacy!

[@ryanehlol4180]

There may be a T-62D (T-62 fitted with Drozd APS) as well from memory

[@nothingnothing8503]

@@usuallyhapless9481 hope you someday will do content and gameplay about Combat Mission: Afghanistan.

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

@@nothingnothing8503it’s the clunkiest and arguably one of the hardest combat mission titles

[@Prederick]

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.

[@thegenericguy8309]

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

[@usuallyhapless9481]

True. It is entirely possible in CM for a T62 to get hit in that spot and not immediately detonate- as with a lot of CM mechanics it's not clear exactly what's going on behind the armour

[@artemisfowl7191]

APFSDS (and other kinetic projectiles) don't really incur damage penalties from having only marginal penetration of armor (although M774's performance against a T-62's UFP cannot be described as marginal), in fact increased armor means increased damage for kinetic projectiles. HEAT penetration=damage pretty much though

[@thegenericguy8309]

@@artemisfowl7191 a marginal penetration of armor from a kinetic projectile will absolutely suffer in terms of post-penetration effects. a marginal pen is not a penetration that went through thick armor, it is simply a penetration at the very upper limit of the projectile's capability to penetrate - the margin. they are studied and referred to in penetration tests and such because they are worth distinguishing both with HEAT and kinetic rounds from a more confident penetration, as the extremely low amount of remaining energy results in less spall blown into the target, which is moving slower on top of that, and less energetic shell fragmentation, if the entire shell even makes it through. APFSDS absolutely does better when it has some real armor to go through before exiting into the target's interior, but there is an ideal amount of material penetrated for a given projectile to produce spall, and that amount is far short of the absolute maximum the projectile can penetrate. for an example, compare the post-penetration M735 might accomplish after penetrating a T-72M's hull from 1km against what M833 would do - the T-72M would be far more at risk from the post-penetration effects of M833, which can confidently defeat the armor, and has much better odds surviving a penetration from M735, the lower energy and lesser spalling of the marginal pen being less able to ignite throwing charges and less likely to hit anything important at all and instead get hung up on a piece of trim, machinery guard, or something else of the sort HEAT marginal penetrations are definitely the least useful of the bunch, though. HEAT only loses post-pen power with each inch of armor it punches through, with no caveats, and there are records of chieftains in Iran and T-72s in Grozny surviving half a dozen and more HEAT grenade penetrations with minimal injured crew and little damage to internals owing to this

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@artemisfowl7191 indeed, there are examples of lightly armoured BMPs taking APFSDS rounds and being (as far as combat is concerned) unharmed and continue to fight. not sure how common, but i have seen it mentioned by multiple veterans.

[@masonm9316]

I do not think I have ever witnessed a T62 in SF2 ever even hit a NATO tank in my games, let alone kill one. I’ve lost tanks to T72/90s but never to a 55/62.

[@snipeefox]

Sad. I’ve seen them knock out a challenger.

[@TheSeb12345]

Every video i did see from SF2 the Syrian Army was so useless even in keyhole positions like 17:40 that i dont even considered it fun to buy in the first place. It always looked like a moorhuhn shooter.

[@Det_core]

​@@TheSeb12345the challenge from sf2 is from the requirement to keep your casualties as low as possible

[@Mechanized85]

​@@snipeefox luck, tactical and cooperation matter if you want to kill one of those toughest armoured vehicles, otherwise, want to kill one of them freely? it's uneasy and less possible, of course, it's nothing impossible when T-62 got a chance to take a pop shot at flanks or rears upon NATO Tank.

[@devilin100]

I've had T54/55/62/64s kill CND Leo 1s and Leo 1s pretending to be a Leo 2.

[@thegenericguy8309]

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.

[@burningphoneix]

The T-62s did so well for Iraq against Chieftains that the Iraqis declined sales for the Chieftain in favour of more T-62s and later on T-72s.

[@Bushydem0n]

Fresh hapless video on the weekend is a lovely gift

[@alexcheremisin3596]

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.

[@CMDR-DR-SGT]

Ahh the Zhenbao incident, no one ever talks about that

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

The Soviets sent everything they could against the tank - BM-21s, 2S4 mortars, an entire motor-rifle battalion, even special forces Amusingly, the Soviet special forces failed in their mission due to a single Chinese soldier - being assigned to guard the tank, the soldier became tired and decided to take a nap inside. He awoke to Soviet soldiers poking outside and surprised them with his rifle, chasing them away and preventing them from dealing and damage to the tank’s interior subsystems. The Soviet artillery also failed to damage the tank, but sank it to the bottom of the Urussi river - a few months later, the Chinese brought in several naval winches and yanked it out from underneath the ice. Supposedly (according to a eyewitness veteran), the tank’s engine was actually in repairable condition, and the tank was repaired in-situ and driven to the nearest railyard on its own power -quite impressive. The entire Zhenbao Island affair is a complete debacle and arguably one of the most important pieces of 20th-century Chinese history - supposedly the tank itself was also commanded personally by a border-guard colonel, who was the highest-ranking Soviet borderguard officer to die between WW2 and Afghanistan.

[@OperatorMax1993]

​​@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev and thus it would lead to the creation of the Type 69/79 tank

[@briansmithwins]

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.

[@mr.chaplain4958]

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!

[@System-Update]

"Neglected to secure my flanks" is on the Hapless bingo card. ;)

[@MsNessbit]

very cool series

[@mark009vn]

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.

[@realQuiGon]

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

[@artemisfowl7191]

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

[@usuallyhapless9481]

There is!

[@artemisfowl7191]

It's probably not super helpful but it might make a difference against the Canadian Leopard C2 (which is, an uparmored Leopard 1) in CMSF2

[@aanders1990]

My biggest issue with the T-62 and a lot of Soviet vehicles in general is the spotting while opened up. I've had multiple instances where the T-62 tank commander is opened up and looking directly at an enemy tank at close range and can't see it. My understanding is the way Combat Mission works each tank has a buttoned and unbuttoned spotting ability but personally I wish every factions spotting ability was the same when opened up (depending on veterancy of course). This makes the the T-62's you have to work with basically useless in their intended role of fighting enemy tanks. You have to slow down and use pin point artillery strikes to take out stationary tanks because those M60's will destroy entire platoons of T-62's before they can get a spot.

[@intelligentgrawlix794]

It's not that he can't see it, he is just so terrified of what he is seeing that he is speechless

[@brichess8227]

The superior American mk1 eyeball is enhanced by democracy obv

[@deztag3964]

Paraphrasing The Cheiftan: Soviet doctorine is for the TC to fight from within the cupola. They open up the hatch but they dont stick their heads out. NATO doctorine is for TC to fight unbuttoned and head or even torso out of the cupola for maximum situational awareness. If this is what CM games are simulating its actually 100% accurate spotting difference. I believe it was in a Q&A video, or one of the ones where he is talking from his desk.

[@sheeplord4976]

@@deztag3964 Combat Mission's spotting in general is probably the single biggest issue with the game. I understand that in real war stupid things happen, but when a tank is literally firing at you from 20 meters in an open field, that should be an instant spot.

[@groeny2]

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

[@larsdejong7396]

To answer your question about it's poor spotting: I think this emphasizes the importance of reconnaisance. It might be worth it to slow down, and use some smaller units, like dismounted pixeltruppen, to give your tanks a rough idea of where the enemy is. From that perspective, it is interesting that the T-62's poor spotting characteristics limits the momentum of the Soviets in CMCW. (my only experience with the T-62 is Wargame EE, where you are heavily reliant on scout vehicles anyway, so the optics of tanks don't matter as much. I am aware that this is not how things work in real life. :P)

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yes and no- the main problem is that the crew inside the T62 can't see out that well. Knowing where the enemy is doesn't necessarily help with that all that much

[@larsdejong7396]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I understand, this just seems like the best way to use what you have. I am aware that it is not the same as a tank with better optics.

[@Rip-xe]

happy 20k subscribers hapless

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks very much!

[@daredemontriple6]

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?

[@CMDR-DR-SGT]

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.

[@robertkalinic335]

To be fair to real t62 or bmp1, i remember raising my eyebrow sometimes after getting smoked by Bradley that was doing tour de france 30m in front. Even bmp3 after getting guided right behind Bradley got shredded.

[@zyavoosvawleilte1308]

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.

[@mcsmash4905]

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

[@OperatorMax1993]

Would be interesting to see the Iran Iraq war in CM. I'm sure a reskin mod for CM Cold War would be possible once we have West and East Germany included

[@jimmydesouza4375]

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

[@strahinjas.5135]

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

[@strahinjas.5135]

*my CM titles, not games, but you get what i mean

[@usuallyhapless9481]

CM is so old at this point that it just can't take advantage of some modern hardware, so it's a tough one to answer.

[@strahinjas.5135]

Still hoping for the new engine to come out in my lifetime. In all honesty yea, its a spaghetified mess of code that can run well enough just about... but i was just wondering about specs for the sake of comparing results

[@GrumblingGrognard]

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.

[@larsdejong7396]

It is. It is incapable of penetrating any modern tank from the front, has no thermals or automatic lead, and has steel armor. By your definition, the M46 is not obsolete.

[@GrumblingGrognard]

@@larsdejong7396 "Functionally" means it cannot perform the function. The ability to destroy an enemy MBT with a single shot from ANY angle was never in any MBT's design, esp considering the longevity. By your definition ALL MBTs in the world are obsolete except the British Challenger (which is supposed to be frontally proofed against them all -- or the latest Russian design for which they claim the same). You cannot have it both ways.

[@larsdejong7396]

@@GrumblingGrognard Fair enough. Let's just call them behind the curve, then.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I may have used 'functionally' as a synonym for 'basically' here. Obsolescent is probably more like it, though obviously it depends what task the tank is being wheeled out for. A WW1 Dreadnaught can absolutely sink a modern aircraft carrier... but it's definitely obsolete.

[@reluctantheist5224]

*Dreadnought 😊

[@zaponator]

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

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Same

[@OperatorMax1993]

I also heard news that BTR-50s are being used. It'd be interesting to see those. Including the Czechoslovakian OT-62 Topas for the Syrian side

[@Spider-Too-Too]

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

[@markraffety3246]

If NATO and the Warsaw Pact had gone to war, it would have quickly escalated to a nuclear exchange. The US and the UK could have easily made do with the M48 and the Centy since both could be upgraded to carry the 105mm gun and other mods. The Soviets had a better excuse to try to replace the T55 with a better tank but since their bmps carrired armament that could knock out any armor till the 1980s made that need questionable as well. Both the US and USSR ultimately designed their armies to fight each other in Europe which sometimes left them ill prepared and scrambling in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

[@thathumanhayden2979]

Honestly, the t-62 works pretty well for me. (vs ai, though) The 1975 version seems to spot better too, but both in Cold War don't feel that bad: It's close enough that the advancing tank is probably going to be the one hit first. Once you get to M60A3s though, yeah, it's rough.

[@Mechanized85]

Yeah, Thank God The T-62 1975 version has a Laser rangefinder, which surely increases the first chance of hitting a target when they find one.

[@yoloman3607]

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.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

The agility could simply be a CM mechanic. Following a complex course with the fast order isn't exactly something you would actually do in a battle, it's purely for the test.

[@historyisawesome6399]

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

[@nothingnothing8503]

"Also are you a developer if so any plans on adding modules to cmcw" don't be crazy, hapless just content shower, the real developer is done by battlefront, he is not.

[@robertkalinic335]

Its really just american size t55 because Kruschev really wanted to emphasize how everything is bigger in ussr.

[@СергейШнайдер-я8н]

Good tank👍

[@scrobblesmcbobbles]

Praise

[@brichess8227]

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

[@nothingnothing8503]

well, that mean's if single unit can't make good spot, then make a formation to spotting enemy together.

[@jamesduston9292]

If the tanks have a 20% chance of spotting first, then 10 tanks would have a 89% percent chance of spotting first.

[@jackcoleman1784]

But this doesn't equate to much. You're examining probability in a vacuum without taking the greater context into account which is a bad way to use probability. Even if the odds work out to them "spotting first" all it really means is they spot at the same time as the opposition. And that opposition is practically guaranteed the same spot with less numbers and at farther distances. All a T-62 spotting first really means is spotting equal if that. You have to compare the odds of spotting first on both sides with their differing technology. And this isn't done effectively by using percentages and probabilities that only reflect the predicted ability of one side without taking the other side into account. You also have to consider how many failed rolls take place before the successful roll versus the probability of the opposition succeding on their spotting roll first. 89 percent is only the chance to spot after 9 failures. Even if all these rolls occurred simultaneously the result would be many more tanks on one side successfully spotting versus significantly less tanks successfully spotting on the opposing side. In order for the unit as a whole to take advantage of this spotting information if they didn't all spot the information has to be relayed by their C2 structure. One side has a lot more communicating to do before the unit as a whole can take advantage of the successful spot than the other does and this means one side successfully shoots with more guns than the other one. So even if they shoot first at the same time one side will have many more tanks shooting first than the other side. So no those odds do not work out to the T-62 having some kind of advantage probability wise.

[@prometheus_tdd]

Someone did their math correctly! 0.8^10 and there you have it, 10,7% chance to not spot a target 👊

[@larsdejong7396]

If you go up in scale, so goes your enemy. Also, those 10 tanks aren't in the same place. Well, unless you want them to die to airstrikes.

[@jamesduston9292]

@@larsdejong7396 That's the problem. If one thinks about bring more, tanks, the terrain may obstruct the tanks from all seeing their target. So with more tanks, the chances of an additionally able to spot becomes marginally less likely. Additionally, there is some data (although niche confided to MENA WWII, and is noisy and weak correlation) that suggests the more tanks one brings to battle, the higher chances of losing tanks in the first initial engagements. A thousand tanks in field would be spotted first before a single tank.

[@larsdejong7396]

@@jamesduston9292 Glad you realise the problem with your reasoning in your original comment.

[@Mechanized85]

8:08 - Hey! Bring up the Dragon to here! We have an enemy tank in sight!

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

I wish there was more information about the dragon available out there, really an interesting ATGM.

[@d.c.6065]

Was the T-62 replaced by the -72 or by the -64? CM:CW seems to imply that it’s the latter.

[@mitamajr]

T-64 was first, but it was very expensive, so a simpler and cheaper T-72 was made. I think T-64 went to generally higher quality units, although I could be wrong

[@devilin100]

Kind of both, T64 was the official replacement and the T72 was to be a wartime expedient production tank. T64 had some problems early on due to its advanced construction and components, well for the soviets.T72 was also favoured by the Russian bureaucrats as a homegrown design compared to the T64 being Ukrainian in origin, so they took every opportunity to limit its production and push the T72 to the forefront.

[@ryanehlol4180]

It was replaced on the production lines in Uralvagonzavod by the T-72 (production ceased in 1975), but apparently from what I've heard units equipped with the T-62 in Germany received the T-80 as a replacement

[@usuallyhapless9481]

TLDR, - and this will upset some people- it can be useful to think of the T62 as a medium tank and the T64 as a heavy tank. They're absolutely not, but they somewhat fit into those roles. In terms of replacements, the T72 steps in as the T62 replacement not in a like-for-like sense, but because it was the next tank that the Soviets produced in similar quantities.

[@artemisfowl7191]

In front line formations like GSFG it was T-64 that replaced T-62, in second line formations in Poland and Western Russia the more plentiful T-72 replaced T-62. The earliest examples of T-72 were really not sophisticated at all lacking composite turret armor and featuring the same Optical rangefinder found on T-64A, even more sophisticated T-72's in the relevant timeframe for CMCW lack in comparison to the T-64B

[@wheelcha1rman2]

FM- what number? I need it.

[@wheelcha1rman2]

Disregard, I've already go it and read it. Ha.

[@Mechanized85]

FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics

[@wheelcha1rman2]

@@Mechanized85 I remembered I already own it. 😅

[@gerfand]

I disagree heavly on the idea that M60 (and T-62) were stop gap tanks. From what it seens they were the peak of what their technology allowed... well not M60A1 since they really should have gotten a Stabilizer in them, but besides that one thing, they were the peak of tech. I say that because for one thing M60s lets say, were introduced in 1960s, it took 20 years for them to get the Abrams, yes they had stuff like the MBT-70 in the works but taht was so different that its almost unrelated, however I will say this M48 were actually a stopgap tank, I say this because they were essentially M47 with much better FCS between other things, which would make them more capable against Soviet designs, while M60 was trying to become better than them. (In that sense the M60A3 would probably be the Stop Gap) Soviet Design just got a breakthrought with T-62 and then T-64, which lead to a dominance in design up to when Abrams and Leopard 2 were introduced. Thing with T-62, however, is that since they were much easier to make than T-64, and the fact its 2 different companies making them (Karkov tank plant did T-64, Ural did T-62) meant that T-62 became a mobilization tank, while T-64 became a main tank, as you can see with the only serious modernization attempt for T-62 being the 1980s one, while T-64 were modernized by the soviets until their replacement in prodcution by T-80U(D)s in Ukraine SR.

[@jimmydesouza4375]

You can disagree all you like, but you would be wrong. The M46/7/8 were stopgaps until the T95 was adopted, however the T95 got scrapped, then they upgraded the M60 as much as they thought was cost effective because that itself was it was a stopgap until the MBT70 got adopted, then the MBT70 got scrapped, then finally the M60 was a stopgap until the XM1 got adopted and that one finally did actually get adopted. The issue was that there was always a new design on the cusp of getting adopted and then something would kill the project so they had to stick with the M46/47/60. The Pershing/Patton series have been stopghaps throughout their entire life actually, for instance the original M26 was only adopted as a heavy tank because of delays in adopting the T29/34, which never went past the prototype stage, and got reclassified post war as a medium.

[@larsdejong7396]

@@jimmydesouza4375 You are both right to certain extends.

[@gerfand]

@@jimmydesouza4375 the problem is mostly time frame, I cannot see how the M60A1 was a stop gap for a Tank they did not knew idea wise

[@jimmydesouza4375]

@@gerfand Do you understand what a stopgap is?

[@gerfand]

@@jimmydesouza4375 yes, but it requires a gap for it tobe described as such.

[@SaintThomasAquinas1]

Why are there so many dislikes on this video?

[@johan-erikjohannesson2796]

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.

[@nothingnothing8503]

If Iranian are less incompetence than reality, also, they will done their own recon works, i suspecting, the result will changed and also and M60A1 and Chieftains may done somewhat better, of course, no one knows about alternative reality outcome is it.

[@Mechanized85]

Let's go! T-62!

[@RavenholdIV]

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.

[@thegenericguy8309]

there are 100mm sabots which are as powerful as some 115mm sabots, but firing ammunition of similar sophistication the 115mm gun is universally significantly more powerful. if you compare 115mm 3BM21 with 100mm 3BM25, which were produced by the same development program and are very similar in construction, you will find the 3BM21 has significantly better performance owing to being longer and heavier. the 3BM25 was actually the most advanced round the Soviets bothered producing for the T-55, while the T-62 eventually further received the 3BM28, which was a fully modern depleted uranium monobloc penetrator with excellent performance for its time. it was also upgraded 1:1 identically with the T-55 otherwise, the Soviet upgrade programs for T-55 and T-62 were respectively the T-55AM, the T-55AD, the T-62M, and the T-62D, and all of these consisted of bolting the exact same armor, laser rangfeinders, fire control equipment, and engine upgrades, only very slightly adapted to the slight differences between the two

[@anthony4331]

Can't think of anything funny to say so I will leave this comment here for the algorithm

[@Spider-Too-Too]

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