Russia sent T-62s to Ukraine - Fake News or correct?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

»» Corrections «« At 8:15 I say "150 mm" it should be "115 mm" as indicated on the screen, thanks to Andy. »» Links to Footage «« 1:17 T-62Ms and T-62MVs on railway video: twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1529393107858599936 Photos of T-62MV and T-62M in Syria on Oryx blog see photos #6 & #7: www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/02/rearming-syria-russian-deliveries-of-t.html See #7 for the markings as also seen in the video from the first link.

[@looinrims]

That would be a scary T-62

[@TK2692]

Could you please pin this comment? This looks a comment that was meant to be pinned. Also, great video as always. I appreciate the time and research you seem to put into your videos, since there has been so much misinformation and disinformation going around since this whole thing started.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@TK2692 thank you, missed to pin it or it got unpinned since I edited it.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

ISU152. I know it’s not relevant. I just like it

[@TRPilot06YT]

@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle Its a good tank

[@SteamCheese1]

Hello! Railroader here! The generic symbols means something to railroads for transportation. What they mean by "Don't go down hill" is that you shouldn't push the railcar with the tank over a shunting hill, else the tank might slide around and either upset the balance of the railcar making it prone for derailing or the tank could even roll over the chucks and smash into the leading railcar. Center of Mass is important for calculating load capacity and spreading the weight evenly on all axels of the railcar. And H-2200 is simply the height of the tank in millimeters when you fold down the machine gun mount and remove the antennas for transport. That's the meaning of the symbols. Hope I could help.^^

[@Idaho-Cowboy]

In America that's why you see "Do not Hump" on rail-cars.

[@convenientEstelle]

@@Idaho-Cowboy No, that's for the horny train fans

[@SteamCheese1]

@@Idaho-Cowboy To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even bat an eye if the reason for "Do not hump" originated because of a railfan from Florida XD

[@christianpethukov8155]

I learned something, thank you! I just assumed they roll the tank on the flat car, secure it, and everything will be ok. I mean, I was sure there were weight restrictions and procedures for placing and removing the vehicle, but beyond that I was not aware of the other complexities.

[@hddun]

Isaia, thanks much for this information on the railcar symbols. Your explanation was great in my case I didn't know that detail and it helps to understand the technical details of something that helps me. Thanks again..

[@HeliophobicRiverman]

You're right in saying that footage of tanks being moved by rail isn't necessarily meaningful, in fact this has been done as a method of confusing the opposition as far back as WWII: the British "Covenanter" tank, which was a horribly flawed abortion of a tank was deemed so bad that it was relegated to training purposes AND generous numbers of Covenanters were loaded onto railcars and shunted up and down the UK in order to give the impression of large amounts of armor being moved around. The hope was that German spies and German recon would provide German high command with a misleading picture of what British armor formations were preparing for.

[@tibchy144]

I read they will be needing them for checkpoints within conquered territory.

[@jonny-b4954]

@@tibchy144 Probably something a vehicle like that would be used for post D-Day. I'd imagine they'd pear back the deception to such an extent post Normandy build up. And find new uses for the vehicles. There were soooo many vehicles made for WW2 for so many specific purposes. Yet even then, tons of roles left unfilled or underequipped.

[@carterjones8126]

British Intelligence pretty much spent the entire duration of the war trolling the German high command.

[@Citizen-w-e-a]

That might be right for competent armies, so that excludes the russian.

[@johnconner4695]

Lol that’s not even close to what’s going on lol

[@bat2293]

"A tank is still a tank". Truer words have never been spoken. Ranks right up there with: "Having a tank is better than not having a tank".

[@slavicemperor8279]

It is not the same being in a T-72B3 that can withstand an NLAW and being inside a tank which can be knocked out via M72 LAW or RPG22 though

[@bat2293]

@@slavicemperor8279 Agreed. However, in the words of Comrade Stalin: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

[@altergreenhorn]

In a current propaganda war where west immediately banned all russian outlets(wondering why?) is very hard to distinguish fake and real however Ukrainain(westrn) surces are way more prone to produce fake news as are Russians. Everyone can still reach some russian media with some knowhow, can easy compare 2-3 week old news (now verified) from Russia and from the West (ukraine) media. My score is russian lie in 20% ukrainain(west) lie in 90% cases

[@Chimpiin]

@@slavicemperor8279 haven't seen much evidence of tanks withstanding NLAW, only tanks surviving NLAW near misses or ones where it was fired too close; which any armour could withstand, including a T-62.

[@slavicemperor8279]

@@Chimpiin There has been many pictures of T-72s surviving NLAW attacks, which is not that surprising. NLAW has an effective penetration of 400-600mm depending on shot placement, T-72's has just about 550-650mm of protection against HEAT warheads on most of it's turret and as much as 850mm of HEAT protection on hull front. Then the ERA comes into play and since NLAW doesn't utilize a tandem warhead it's effectiveness can be severely crippled by that. Not to say NLAW isn't a great, cost effective weapon against tanks, but it is very much survivable unlike Javelin whose effectiveness in destroying the target is above 95%

[@Kriegter]

Your videos are really helpful specially when there's so much fake stuff about this war on the internet

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@Rubensky44]

yeah because of the enormous amount of bias for Ukraine which is good but bad because no one wants to see the ukrainien losses and want to see bad info about russia

[@themasterofanalyticsandwie1342]

yeah especially reddit is full of BS when it comes to information. they just want to hear what they want to hear. Yes sure most Poeole want Ukraine to win. Me too, but this way just gives them a dangerous form of underestimation. yet it seems they have reaorganized and start to take thier cake after alot of problems.

[@e3nethan910]

@Работаем, брат! Zelensky is still a better leader than your coward Putin, always paranoid and shitting his pants over getting overthrown.

[@Nugget_prime]

They can be for the armies of the new republics, they did the same with the Syrian army, these tanks are very cheap to operate, and a crew can be trained "quickly".

[@davidconnellan6875]

During the second world war the Germans used a lot of captured "tanks". For example the FT17 a hopelessly out dated ww1 The Wehrmacht captured 1,704 FTs.They used about 100 for airfield defence and about 650 for patrolling occupied Europe. I can see the Russians employing the T-62s in rear areas as you said like supple line protection and the like. There by freeing up more modern equipment for frontline combat.

[@lonesurvivalist3147]

Makes sense to me.

[@richardt8239]

To be fair, the captured / stolen tanks weren't all rubbish: the Czech LT38 was a mainstay of the Polish and French campaigns, and the chassis was still in use in 1945 as the Hetzer light tank destroyer.

[@davidconnellan6875]

@@richardt8239 oh I wasn't implying that impressed military vehicles were all rubbish, I was just making the point that even old outdate equipment can play a useful role... if properly employed. Like an Ft17 for police work is fine, I don't think that they would have been particularly effective at Kursk on the other hand lol

[@davidconnellan6875]

@@Bloodwest I don't think that the Russians are going to run out of armour anytime soon. But they are definitely going to run out of combat ready equipment. Getting stuff out of long term storage and getting up and running could take weeks at best months at worst

[@tavish4699]

any tank will be taken out by a guy hiding in a house with an rpg so it doesnt really matter how old the tanks are so you might aswell just commit them to the front to have more firepower

[@drox3992]

Very good job with shortly covering certain things about tanks, At 1:51 you made a segment describing "brow armor" which was very useful to help follow and understand the rest of the video, Fantastic scripting and video as always!🙂☺🙂

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Cool, thanks!

[@Arwiden]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized in general, we call them "Brezhnev's eyebrows"

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Really appreciate the details, digging down to confirm the videos are recent, that tanks have been on the move, etc. Don't get that anywhere else.

[@ericswain70]

"A tank is better than no tank" Love this channel.

[@Flamechr]

Not if spare parts is not availiable then it is a pillbo were it breaks down 😅

[@yaro21a]

The tank with limited vision and nothing for armor is basically a coffin on wheels. Forget the Nlaw and Javalin and stugna on the field, the regular RPG will take it out and you lose valuable tank crew who take months to train if not years.

[@johnbox271]

The United States Marine Corps disagrees.

[@bishopofsahs]

A swimming pool is better than a pond

[@kenelsey9360]

@@Flamechr The Ukranians are finding a lot of western made computer chips in knocked out Russian equipment. Perhaps the Russians are running low on parts for the T-72 and newer tanks. The T-62 would be the most powerful tank that is arguably all "Russian" parts. This would make it more sustainable by Russian industry.

[@smokejaguarsix7757]

Many people also forget that HE rounds fired from tanks make for useful artillery. If you want to destroy buildings and materials a T62's main gun fires an excellent high explosive round that has been used by many armies for exactly that task. They are also effective at killing troops and general harassment and supporting fires. A tank is always better at that task than IFVs and APCs.

[@sticky59]

Yep, easy to learn in for the novice tanker, and it seems Russia has 100's of them and warehouses full of parts. Anyone who still thinks Ukraine can win this conflict is overdosing on the KoolAid. Ukraine is doomed.

[@Trias805]

@@sticky59 That's cool. More testing opportunities for Javelins and NLAWs.

[@smokejaguarsix7757]

@@sticky59 youre about 20 years behind the times. No, they dont. Mostvare falking apart from lack of maintenance and stolen parts. The ones that work are few and far between. I bet they called for these 4 months ago prior to invading and they are just nkw arriving.

[@inquisitorsteele8397]

@PJ Rivera To be fair a tank that might be destroyed by enemies still better than no tank at all. As a former navy pioneer I'm still appreciated an army M60 tank that help us clear out dug in insurgents with it main gun. As outdated as it was effective at provided infantrymen with fire support as long as it was kept operational.

[@sticky59]

@@smokejaguarsix7757 We shall see won't we. Ukraine now on the run in the Donbas, it doesn't look like they will be needed anyway. : )

[@williamreymond2669]

4:00] The text you are showing may actually be a railroading term. On American railways you will sometimes see a sign or inscription attached to a rail car with special cargo saying 'Do Not Hump,' meaning it should not be sent over the 'hump' in a 'classification yard' or 'hump yard.' Instead that car should be switched by being pushed by a small 'switcher' locomotive. A 'hump' is simply a small mound that has track running over it so that a railcar that has been uncoupled from a train can be pushed up one side and then roll down the other side under the force of gravity which gives it just enough speed to be sent through a series of remote controlled switchers and sorted out onto one of a series of parallel tracks to form new trains. It's really not that complicated. For a more detailed explanation of how a Classification or 'Hump Yard' works see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

[@F2000-q2z]

I saw some twitter accounts that mentioned that these T-62's were either a) to bolster the local DPR and LPR militia's who have few heavy weapons or b) were meant to go to quiet fronts like Cherson so that the better tanks could be relocated to the active front in the Donbass.

[@tomk3732]

I say option a) Russia would not risk Kherson to be overrun. Ukraine just tried yesterday and lost like 800 men. So Russians may be few and far in between there, but they are armed top notch.

[@noop9k]

@@tomk3732 why not 800000 men?

[@jeansansterre6908]

@@tomk3732 lol the Ukrainian counter-attack is a fail

[@rtqii]

@@tomk3732 I heard it was 2 million Ukrainians KIA and 10,000 tanks destroyed, and 6000 Ukrainians planes shot down in that battle and Russians are moving on Odessa right?

[@michael-gb3rn]

@@tomk3732 and were did u get those number from? show me your source.

[@fragsinus2076]

I have the answer to "How much 115mm ammo left" - there are giant amounts of 115 mm shells in warehouses,115mm projectiles are also used for Rapier anti-tank cannons. Also one of the reasons for using the T-62 is that the tank is incredibly easy to master compared to the T-72 and T-80(though saying "it`s nearly WWII tech" is incredibly wrong), which is a significant advantage since they are intended for the militia.

[@spyonmetoo]

I wonder if the lack of a self-loading mechanism is also good for morale given the amount of more modern turrets with the ammo carrousel blown of catastrophically in the war.

[@richardthomson4693]

also produced by a lot of countries. Main one would north korea and iran who would have no issues supplying russia. Also even the british produce 115mm. They make AP ammo in the 115 size that they sell to egypth

[@akizeta]

I wouldn't say _incredibly_ wrong. 1962 was 17 years after WWII, and is 60 years away from 2022. That is _old_ technology, no two ways about it.

[@akizeta]

I wouldn't say _incredibly_ wrong. 1962 was 17 years after WWII, and is 60 years away from 2022. That is _old_ technology, no two ways about it.

[@gareththompson2708]

@@spyonmetoo Lacking a self-loading mechanism wouldn't help to save the crew from ammunition explosions. It might not blow the turret off, but any ammunition explosion in any tank that doesn't have blowout panels will kill the entire crew every time (if they are still in the tank at the time the explosion occurs, sometimes there may be a few seconds to get out before a fire spreads to the ammunition). The auto-loader carousel doesn't actually make the ammunition explosion any worse. It just makes it more visually impressive by focusing the energy of the explosion in just the right place to pop the turret off. But the crew is just as dead whether or not the turret pops off. The auto-loader carousel actually doesn't have the worst placement in the world to minimize the chances of getting hit and detonating the ammunition (fairly low in the chassis, which is statistically a bit less likely to get hit than the turret). And, if the only ammunition in the tank is the ammunition in the carousel, ammunition explosions are less likely in T72/T90 series tanks than in T64/T80 series tanks (the T72/T90 has the ammunition placed horizontally, where the T64/T80 has the ammunition placed vertically, making a bigger target). But the probability of an ammunition explosion increases drastically if the crew carries a lot of spare ammunition outside the auto-loader carousel, which the Russians have apparently been doing (we learned that lesson the hard way ourselves, probably the biggest factor in reducing catastrophic fires in Shermans in WW2 was learning to not pack every available space with spare ammunition).

[@kenibnanak5554]

It makes perfect sense for old, inferior tanks in running condition with ammo to to be used as rear guard units or even as diversionary force units while newer tanks do the real attacking. A similar thing happened during WWII when the US Army in Europe deployed their obsolete M5 Stuart light tanks to the MPs guarding prisoners and also to patrol occupied areas. I would expect the Russians to find similar uses for old Soviet era tanks.

[@hedgehog3180]

Well the M5 wasn't really obsolete and it was the main light tank of the US throughout the war, the Chaffee was only introduced at the very end of the war and didn't replace all the M5s before the war was over. The Stuarts were introduced in 1941 so aren't really comparable to the T-62 here, and also while their guns and armor might seem hopelessly obsolete compared to Panthers and Tigers that comparison doesn't really make sense. Being a light tank it was not employed to fight enemy tanks directly and it was never meant to, it was mostly meant as a recon vehicle and something to quickly exploit breaches in enemy lines, as well as being something that could travel with the advance elements of an attack and support them. For that role it had perfectly adequate armor and armament, having enough armor to withstand all small arms and some AT rifles and autocannons, while also having MGs to fight infantry and a gun that can take out vehicles and support guns. At the same time it was more than a match for whatever German light tanks it might meet as Germany basically hadn't updated their light tanks at all. Then we also have to remember that Panthers and Tigers were not the most common German tanks at that time or at any time during the war, if it encountered any tanks at all it was most likely to encounter Pz IIIs, IVs and Stugs, it could penetrate all of those from the front with the exception of the Stug and could easily penetrate al of them from the side. And given that it was highly maneuverable and had great optics it was very likely going to be able to flank whatever enemies it might encounter. And that's of course just the European theater, if we talk about the Pacific not only was it not obsolete it was far superior to whatever it might meet, having better armor than most Japanese tanks and a gun that could penetrate all of them while also having the benefit of being small and light which made it perfect for jungle and beach environments. The biggest drawback of the Stuart platform was not it's AT performance but really that it's gun wasn't big enough to fire effective HE shells. Modifications like the Satan tried to address this by switching the main gun out for a flame thrower which is more effective against infantry but that limited it's range. Ultimately this was why it started to be replaced with Shermans, M18s (which were being used in the light tank role because their intended role hadn't really been relevant) and later on the Chaffee when it started to arrive. But the Stuart definitely wasn't obsolete by any measure here and would serve in front line roles throughout the entire war.

[@Vibakari]

@@hedgehog3180 the m5 came out in the 1940s and is a light tank that will always be viable in the recon and light armor role (look at brazil) The t62 is just way past it’s expiration date without modern optics or softkill defences This is also including the massive strain on support and logistic this platform will have. For example, the train transporting them could have been transporting useful materials instead.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Except this is where Ukraine counterattacked... 🤣

[@pajTHEman]

@@MostlyPennyCat and lost unfortunately.

[@pajTHEman]

by all accounts, they are being used as assault guns at range and very effectively right now. They are old but still very effective and if they get knocked out, the loss is relatively minor. Smart use of the weapon

[@MatthewChenault]

Finally! A bit of sanity brought in to these discussions. Too many people just listen and believe whatever the media or the Ukrainians say rather than taking any sort of critical look at what is being presented.

[@fazole]

Have you seen non NATO Austria's military analysis? It's pretty neutral. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKGmYp6Onbxlgtk

[@adiosa1388]

choice is simple trust Ukranians or biggest liars russians

[@looinrims]

People forget propaganda isn’t just a buzzword for political ads

[@VaBe_SvK]

My humble opinion is that they will be given to DNR/LPR conscript reserve troops. For more or less the same reasons as are stated in the video. For a conscript with few days or weeks of training the T-62 will be easier to operate since it is nearly ww2 tech. For the same reason it is probably easier to maintain them then T-72, T-64, T-80. Also these tanks don't have a loader so I dont't think Russian Army will use the T-62. Then they can focus the better tanks in frontline units. Direct fire support is always apreciated. Don't know if it was already stated in the video but they are originaly ukranian tanks stored in Crimea.

[@westsonrises]

Probably.

[@user-ll7py5cv3x]

dpr and lpr are using mosin nagant so this makes a lot of senses

[@johngaither3830]

T-62 was the first Soviet tank to incorporate a version of the autoloader and 3 man crew.

[@juhoalander3461]

@@johngaither3830 maybe google before commenting T 62 is manually loaded, you are confusing it for T 64 which is the first russian autoloaded tank

[@Ypog_UA]

@@juhoalander3461 T-64 is not a Russian tank it is and always was Ukrainian, designed by a design bureau in Kharkov and produced there. But your point about the loader is correct.

[@billmiller4972]

Listening to your impartial discussion is like finding an oasis in a vast desert.

[@percyfaith11]

Do you mean honest and non propagandistic? No one should be impartial in this conflict.

[@johnfranklin6394]

It is easy to geolocate some of the recent photos yourself. Study the photos and then go and look at Google Maps images of Melitopol railway station. There are many easily recognisable buildings and other structures in both that confirm that a train load of T-62 tanks were in Melitopol. That makes the claims that the photos were taken in Russia during military exercises in 2018, or are of tanks being shipped to Syria before the invasion of Ukraine, seem implausible.

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

Did you do that???

[@johnfranklin6394]

@@noirekuroraigami2270 yes, like I said it’s easy. Study the photos online of T-62s in a railway station. Then go check Google earth. It’s like easy easy easy. Anyone that dismisses these photos as being taken at melitopol station either hasn’t been bothered to use publicly accessible data such as Google, or they need to show clear evidence of how the photos are fakes.

[@argosy666]

A strong reason for using the older tank could be that they actually have 115 mm ammo in storage and with all the spent/destroyed ammo for the newer tanks it may simply be a way of spending what they have in ammo reserves. Also they could be sent towards the new 'border' in order to allow the modern tanks to keep advancing instead of remaining for rear guard use. Of course it could be a case of why waste the modern stuff in a war where armour appear to have its limits. A T-62 will blow up just the same as a T-80 etc.

[@clmBerserker]

Saving money in such ways cant be good for moral.

[@trollmastermike52845]

@@clmBerserker probably not but having extra tanks in for the infantry is prob still a moral boost

[@EdgyNumber1]

@@trollmastermike52845 Javelin magnets.

[@trollmastermike52845]

@@EdgyNumber1 the very best most $$$ T90s are javelin magnets too

[@Alan.livingston]

I saw something tho other day discussing the fact they are losing less vehicles in the east because on the massive plains the tanks can stand off beyond the many missiles effective range and there is less places to hide AT crews.

[@stevenpotter8451]

"Don't go down hill" is an instruction for railroads that tells train crews not to gravity switch those loads. In the US we would see "Do not hump" instead.

[@petter5721]

Great video 👍🏻 As a former anti tank soldier in the Swedish army we had to study Russian armour in detail and we had extensive tests in vehicle recognition. Basically we were taught how do defeat each vehicle type in the most effective way. The “red book” was very thick and the “blue book” (NATO) was quite thin 😂. Yes we were “alliance independent” aiming for neutrality in war but we always knew who was the real enemy.

[@someturkishguy8638]

I guess because you can easily disable most western tanks by a side hit or a rear turret hit which combusts the ammo

[@drcornelius8275]

@@someturkishguy8638 Do the turrets fly higher than the Russian tanks we've all been seeing blown up? Must be bad if you're bringing out the T-62s....but the bots say that's winning.

[@bigboi7817]

The real enemy who imported the people who made you the rope capital of europe

[@faraway2217]

@@drcornelius8275 MHV himself mentioned in the video that the reasons why they bring them is that they're more readily available than other more modern reserve tank such as old T-72, since they were last used in 2008 war or 2018 exercise edit: typo

[@christianweibrecht6555]

Accord8ng to the cynical historian, russia's active tank roster is much more varied because its rare for a model to be removed from it

[@jacknemo8021]

My guess was they were nearby and in a state of readiness due to 2018 refurbishment exercises. Move them into 2nd line roles and move up the more modern tanks currently in those roles. Also there are probably tank crews with out tanks due to destruction and abandonment issues. Your reasoning seems sound as well so I'm calling this plausible.

[@brennus57]

Thank you. I always appreciate a clear, objective summary of the best information available.

[@marcusott2973]

Much awaited much appreciated, excellent as always.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad to hear it!

[@marcusott2973]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized what for a shit show this war is, well any war but this is so readily available in pictures. We got used to the sanitised embedded reporting of the "War on Terror". We are back at Vietnam era reporting, of David Halberstam, Peter Arnett on Hamburger Hill just with so much more context. The mind boggles.

[@cornelkittell9926]

Since the likelihood of combat with other tanks seems low, but interaction with infantry high, the T-62 provides what is needed. If they can knock out the more modern Russian tanks with anti-tank missiles then better to lose a T-62 than a T-90.

[@Headloser]

Just tell that to the tank crew whom are coming home completely in ash after an anti-tank hit.

[@nogisonoko5409]

Javelins and NLAW are the only thing that could reliable penetrate it armour by going upwards. But now with the enrollment of T-62, even a M72 LAW and RPG-7 could have chance to penetrate it frontal armour. Even more of a coffin than sitting in a T-72.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

The big question is the survivability of the crew with different versions. The Russians have far more hulls than they have crews so if a crew is significantly more likely to die in a T-62 than a more modern tank, it makes no sense.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

@@nogisonoko5409 I've heard that the AT4 can be effective against them too.

[@cornelkittell9926]

@@matthewhuszarik4173 Good point.

[@PhoenixT70]

People forget; some tanks are better than no tanks, and there haven’t been many major tank-on-tank engagements this war. A T-62 would be fine for infantry support and even limited anti-armor roles.

[@VynalDerp]

It's going to be even more AT bait for any anti-tank weapon made since 1960, though.

[@tonymills5086]

But you failed to realize, and this is not Western propaganda directions lost a boatload of tanks, they were destroyed and now they bring out these old dinosaurs, they will have all sorts of mechanical breakdowns these tanks are slow, quite frankly I just think Russia is sacrificing them, it's a really bad sign for the Russian army these tanks get taken out of moth balls and now you going to work the hell out of them? These tanks are going to be easy pickings.

[@AlexOnTheSide183]

@@tonymills5086 Do you even fucking realise how many tanks Russia has on the front line? Plenty of T-72B's in storage. Why send T-62s. And easy pickings to who? The conscript Ukrainian army? And thats not Russian propaganda , Ukraine itself has stated that the conscript to normal infatry is around 30-70%. Conscript have low morale , dont want to fight at all and generally give up quite fast.

[@1SCme]

@Работаем, брат! If Russia has 100 tanks and crew available, they're going to throw them into battle, losses be damned.

[@1SCme]

@@AlexOnTheSide183 *I suspect you're displaying the delusional belief that posing a talking point as a question adds support in prose that doesn't exit in reality,* rational people realize reality doesn't work that way, but *I am fair - show you have something to add or say* - how many tanks does Russia have on the front line? How many T-72B's in Russian storage? How difficult is it to learn to use an ATGM? How much of the Ukraine forces are reservists, new conscripts, volunteers, or regular military at the outset of the war? *Show your work,* post the search terms that will take someone to your references. *These are YOUR talking points* - if you don't know these, your claims have little basis in reality, and no merit.

[@chynabad9804]

I'm very glad you're keeping your commentary calm and neutral.

[@stevewhite3424]

Absolutely.

[@saumyacow4435]

A couple of things. I don't think its safe to assume that the T62s will only be used in reserve - defending occupied cities rather than used for offensives. That might be rational, but Russia is involved in this war. As others have said, they might be given to separatists. Given the attitude of Russia to its new crop of poorly trained recruits, its entirely possible they'll be used in mass assaults, despite the high losses. Also, the explanation of T72s being harder to get out of storage, or further away. Well, maybe. Except Russia has had months to move them closer to Ukraine and work on them. I would also guess that they've discovered a lot of their stored T72s are in worse shape than officially recorded, are missing parts and probably have vital parts like optics and electronics sold to the black market.

[@1SCme]

"harder to get out of storage" and "any tank is better than no tank" can accurately be viewed as another way of saying Russia has nearly depleted it's reserves of T-72s and newer tanks - T-62s are all Russia has left on hand to throw into the war in large numbers. T-62s are so outdated that the west didn't even include them in estimates of Russian active and reserve tanks.

[@genericpersonx333]

If there are T62s headed for Ukraine, I suspect they are going to serve in second-line duties and really says nothing of consequence, especially given Russia's tradition of reserve arms use. A T62 is still a tough piece of gear with a lot of firepower that takes more than a rifle to defeat. For guarding lines of communications a hundred kilometers behind the frontlines, a T62 is plenty good enough. I, for one, would not want to be the guy who is told to attack a bridge or depot defend by a T62 or four, even if I have an RPG or two to spare.

[@guntguardian3771]

Allegedly some have already been destroyed near Kherson. So we'll see I guess...

[@genericpersonx333]

@@guntguardian3771 To be fair, the distance between the front line and ths second line can be a lot closer than not when you invade a massive country with far too few men to start with. I am just not thinking the T62s are supposed to lead the charge at Kiev.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Tracked vehicles are very poor at providing route security and recon. High fuel consumption and per km maintenance requirements. The Ukrainians don't just have RPGs, they have standoff ATGMs and drones dropping AT grenades that make short work of AFVs parked in static overwatch positions.

[@nemisous83]

@@guntguardian3771 that allegations are completely false, because no T-62's are even near Khersan all of the videos of T-62's where near the southern front line and where offloaded in Melitpol

[@guntguardian3771]

@@nemisous83 Your logic doesn't make sense, just because that's where the videos show them doesn't mean there aren't other areas where T62s have been sent or used.

[@PhantomHarlock78]

T-62 is the Battlestar Galactica of tanks.

[@xraydelta100]

Enlightening video for me. As an combat vet from Vietnam, I worked on rivers. Having virtually no knowledge of tanks, this video and a good number of comments by viewers has provided, in 13 minutes, some quite useful knowledge. Thanks to everyone and host.

[@Bananaskin101]

Does the T-62MV reactive armour have an expiration date and if expired its potentially useless? Given the armour must be over 20 years old by now.

[@jesper509]

Explosives deteriorate over time. But in 1991-93 we shot alot of ammo from ww2, 6,5x55, so 20 years isn't that much.

[@joestrat2723]

20 years?!?! These things gonna blow up real good.

[@tomk3732]

Maybe if it was 200 years old, or at very least 100. But not 20. Heck, I would not hesitate to fire ammo from WWI in my 30 06. Same with my Mosin.

[@rtqii]

@@tomk3732 When are you going to volunteer for Putin's army?

[@itsdifficulttocreateaperfe9850]

@@rtqii Right after you, my man was just saying facts

[@Pilbsu]

They are probably giving it to LNR/DPR forces.

[@edward9674]

The russians really don't think highly of the LNR/DPR forces do they? They treat them like cannon fodder.

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

Very logical, unbiased and non-toxic analysis. There is also a possibility that these will be dumped on LDPR forces who almost have no tanks (at least currently). T-62 is simple and cheap, and some of those conscripts from LDPR are old enough to be trained as tank crew in T-62 and similar T-55 during soviet era, so they have some basic knowledge and can learn faster. Besides, when even a T-90M which doesn't have active hard kill protection systems can't withstand a Javelin, why would you waste it when the crappy T-62 can do almost the same job and get destroyed at the end of the day

[@rapturedmourning]

I'm glad we have the freedom to critically analyze information, and post it and other people view it.

[@bastisantiago9789]

A lot of Ukrainian Territorial Defense Units also complain about a lack of adequate anti tank weaponry, heavy equipment and move around in "Banderomobiles" that are basically pickup trucks with sheet metal armor bolted onto them. Against an enemy like that, T-62M's might as well be T-72s.

[@ArchOfficial]

Bit of a weird look doing stealthy propaganda against your enemy while using overt derogatory propaganda terms.

[@demos113]

It was all a clerical error, they were supposed to send the T-26!!! 🤣

[@seb_1504]

I'd imagine it would be given to the DNR and DPR militias

[@AlexanderSeven]

You mean DNR and LNR probably (or DPR and LPR in English).

[@xaquko9718]

Yeah I thought that as well.

[@armandorodrigues144]

since then a destroyed T-62M was already photographed in Ukraine (Donbas region) and so there's no more dispute about if it really did happen

[@MsZeeZed]

We also saw a company (just part of a whole battalion?) of ‘Terminators’ moved up into the Donbas without their own armor support, maybe the current T-72 reserve units will be paired with them to crack Ukrainian urban strong points in the last Luhansk towns, with these T-62s being the rear area backfill as you suggest. Thanks for the research, other sources have said they were headed for Kherson as backfill for other tanks moving to Donbas, but without actual observed location data that sounded a super risky move even for Russia, as lose Kherson & put all of Crimea’s fresh water at long term risk. So more wish fulfilment not hard data. Not that the strategy above is off the wall.

[@Kevin-hx2ky]

We have seen Terminators in combat along with T-72s though, so it seems that the ones on the road were in transit

[@randellharris7541]

Though it was quite slick and quick, I caught the Chiftan's "famous hat" comment. Nice job!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

;)

[@JustPeasant]

Filling the role of an armoured car (internal security) in the occupied area? Just my 2 cents.

[@darthnox7958]

Wonderful to see someone do proper investigation into this, keep up the good work

[@looinrims]

Did Donbass forces suffer losses in armor? Did they even have armor? Binkov’s Ukraine Vs Russia video only mentioned the Donbass had ~24,000 men in their military between the two but no numbers on equipment

[@DeadBaron]

Donbass Militias are exactly that; militias. So far as I know they were just militarized civilians using anything they could to defect from Ukraine, from Mosins to Makarovs. If Russia sent them T-34s they'd find a way to use them.

[@news_internationale2035]

Why do you trust some random person with a puppet more than anyone else?

[@jumpferjoy1st]

@@news_internationale2035 I do not think @The Looinrims is saying it is fact. He is rightly questioning it. The problem for everyone is the wide gap between "The Free World" clickbait sensationalist claptrap media and the comedic lies of Russian state media. I myself have found very few cool, calm and as neutral as possible news outlets.

[@GeneralissimoJiang]

@@DeadBaron that is very incorrect, they are alot more equipped than you'd think. Just because they're technically classified as "militia" doesn't mean they're just random people with AKs. Both the LPR & DPR operate armored vehicles and I believe some helicopters.

[@theschneek1290]

@@DeadBaron They had artillery and missile systems such as buks since 2014.

[@donjones4719]

2:28 "So this is slightly before he got his famous hat." Very funny, and very enjoyable in the way you slipped it in there. I'd love to know The Chieftain's reaction.

[@raemack1969]

thank you - I was wondering how it was possible that no-one seemed to notice.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Love how right away he shows the tank newbies the difference in the road wheel(bogey) gaps between the T-55 and T-62....That's the easiest thing to spot, and important to know. The turrets are also shaped slightly differently, and other subtle differences as well. I love this channel! Also, for those who still read actual books on paper, the Jane's Guide to Armored Vehicles is also a pretty reliable (although somewhat outdated by now) source of info...I read it like a bible 20+ years ago. Russia seems to be in a pretty sad state to rely on such an old tank though...the T-62 with it's wonky weird 115mm semi-auto gun(I'm not going to elaborate here) and inadequate armor, would be like if the U.S. was still using M-60A3 tanks to invade Canada(Canada has fairly modern Leopard 2s I think?)... desperation much?

[@Argosh]

Take heart comrade, we are sending you battle proven Hardware just like we sent it to your father and father's father!

[@icarus1847]

It just makes sense from a long term perspective: either you use up the last reserves that you cannot sell or repurpose OR you use it to on guard duty. It’s kinda the same move when the US sent their M113’s. Can you use it? No. Can you sell it? Nope. Then give this heap of junk to the guys on the frontline far away from the mainland. Same spirit.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

@@icarus1847 pretty much

[@breizhrudie4757]

Several explanations actually. Most common are : reserve unit, sent due to large storage of 115mm ammo, sent to LPR/DPR militias lacking heavy vehicles (T-62 are easy to master), "guard duty" in low risk areas to send better tanks to the front...I'll add that this indicates Russian's confidence : AFU no longer has significant AT capabilities, they don't have any tank that poses a massive threat to T-62s, the opposing infantry lacks AT means (especially in kotels) and they don't have an air force so to speak.

[@snuscaboose1942]

@@breizhrudie4757 Ukraine has plenty of anti-tank capability, they'd be asking if they'd run out. The Russians have changed tactics and are relying on artillery to flatten everything before sending in tanks and infantry. A brutal and barbaric tactic but effective whilst the Ukrainians lack the rocket range and artillery numbers to counter it.

[@jenswulff732]

Regarding the „с горки не спускать» s gorki ne spuskat refers to handling of the wagons by the railroad operators. It means that these wagons loaded with the tanks mustn’t be used on a classification or shunting yard (Ablaufberg in German) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yards as a safety precaution. Regarding the usage of T-62 one relative advantage could be its narrower width which is 30-50 cm less than that of the T-72/90 and T-80s. This makes it more mobile on narrow roads. In the 2008 Russo-Georgian war they were also employed in quite high proportion.

[@odonovan]

1:56 - Applique': app-lih-KAY As for how the T-62s will be used, they will most likely be used as decoys to confuse Ukrainian tractors.

[@ericdbates]

thoughtful, researched, balanced and impartial. it’s why I always try and watch your content.

[@AlexanderSeven]

Pretty good tank for using on roadblocks and for support forces. Also there are many people who know this tank well.

[@dominiksoukal]

It's a poor tank for roadblocks and infantry support but probably better than nothing

[@robert48044]

@@dominiksoukal if it blows up on the road it still blocks the road

[@GreenGoblinDK]

Using expensive tanks in a city is also a wast (most of the time). People are designing light tanks for fire support to day. This will do the same.

[@olapetersson7332]

I like the way you critique the sources and openly say when you're speculative.

[@markorstb]

Very informative videos as always. However you should also note a possibility that Russians arent arming reserve BTGs of their army but perhaps loyal Pro-Russian militias in occupied parts of Zaporozhie and Kherson so the Russians are providing them with stockpile equipment to establish a foundation for forces that could otherwise be re-equiped with modern equipment and integrated in Russian army given that Russia has shown intentions of annexing the said regions as a whole

[@snuscaboose1942]

You don't give tanks to forced conscripts, else those tanks will be used against you.

[@markorstb]

@@snuscaboose1942 There is plenty of volunteer militias I believe given that Zaporozhie and Kherson were Pro-Russian and Pro-Yanukovich in 2014, regions are mostly Russian speaking AND their resistance was minimal in the opening days of war therefore it's easy to conclude that there's lots of Pro-Russian people

[@snuscaboose1942]

@@markorstb People in Ukraine saw what happened to the DPK and LPK, the Russians shot the initial leaders of the rebellion and installed a corrupt regime under a Stalinist era constitution and poverty ensued. No one wants to live in a poor mafia state like DPK or LPK. Most Russian speaking Ukrainians are loyal Ukrainians. The terrain of southern Ukraine is mainly flat, less populated and not as prone to General Mud, it was easier for the Russians to move at the start of the invasion. Ukrainians in the occupied areas in the south continue to show defiance to the brutal Russian invaders. Chechens don't ask the civilians if they're Russian before they shoot.

[@nobodynoname6062]

The question is: why would anyone ship around T-62Ms in 2022 other than to use them in the war. After all we're seeing Russia use large numbers effin BMP-1s!!

[@faraway2217]

the BMP-1 were used by the separatist tho

[@nobodynoname6062]

@@faraway2217 Nope, not exclusively. That BTG that got hammered during the river crossing had a ton of BMP-1s.

[@GoldenpaydirtReviews]

If it was me and I controlled those T62’s I would use those as artillery so I would lineup maybe 10 of them certain areas and just continue to bless the way 115 mm is a hell of a round coming in so instead of having those as direct tank the tank battles or at the front lines had those in the back using them as artillery makes sense you have a movable military artillery piece you can put anywhere in the battlefield and rob 115 mm shots definitely something I would consider if I owned those tanks and that would be the same for the T 55 now if you get compromised and the opposing force breaks the line you still have tanks the T 62 and t 55 that can shoot rounds back and take a beating

[@JNF590]

Well the Arab's did the same thing Made those Old Tanks as an Artillery , They had A Wire Outside the Tank used to fire it. But I'm so confused RN what is Russia doing with these Tanks. If Territorial Defense away from the front lines the BTR would be better than this as it's highly unlikely they will encounter other Tanks.

[@demanischaffer]

Sounds good till you get hit with counter artillery fire and lose 4 men per tank

[@Brslld]

@@JNF590 Most likely the T-62 are going to be sent to DNR and LNR troops.

[@GoldenpaydirtReviews]

@@demanischaffer not really! Poop & scoot! You have a crap load of t62’s just think of those as artillery, 115mm shots! You can fire maybe 5 rounds every 60 seconds, add that to 10 tanks, then move 2000 yards to the next spot! It’s better then nothing and there still able to shoot direct fire, and hold new ground!

[@ItsJakeTheBrake]

4:26 Tsent(e)r Tyashesty As for the T62, it is still a tank as you said... even if it is outdated compared to other tanks, it is more than Ukraine has. We're not seeing any larger tank on tank battles (or any at all really). Reinforcing your more modern tanks with T62's will allow for good mobility and huge firepower that could still overpower Ukrainian infantry, even with their AT weapons. Also, tons of spare parts are still available, basically for free, and the tank is somewhat disposable. So in essence, the T62 is perfect as reinforcement for the final push to control the Donbas and southern Ukraine and subsequent defense of those territories.

[@archersfriend5900]

Yes, from a Russian perspective it is.

[@UzumakiNaruto_]

*and the tank is somewhat disposable* I guess to the Russians the crew who have to man that tank is disposable as well? I'd hate to be the ones who have to drive that tank anywhere near the frontlines.

[@ItsJakeTheBrake]

@@UzumakiNaruto_ From what we've seen, tank crews have been disposable for Russia since WWII.

[@j.langer5949]

And even if that were true, what does it mean? It means they need to secure territorial gains. No sane army is going to use its state-of-the-art tanks to secure small villages and rear areas. What's more, older types of tanks can come in handy for DPR and LPR units.

[@dovlacro6382]

For scorched earth tactics that is good tank. Old ammo for spending against civil buildings.

[@Formulka]

I think it's a good idea to send what you have, that's why I also think the Leopard 1 could be useful to Ukraine.

[@Sshooter444]

Do you have any idea the logistics required to maintain a tank?

[@allenholman3454]

Useful if German crews were in it, not such much with Ukrainian crews.

[@behroozkhaleghirad]

But Leopard 1 without ERA is a sitting duck against even RPG-2, while these T-62s have some chance against RPG-7 frontally

[@Will_M600]

Given how weak the leo 1 is it'd be far cheaper and more effective to just use trucks with recoilless rifles on the back as seen in the 50s/60s

[@faraway2217]

@@Will_M600 again, having a tank is better than no tank at all

[@vmfeldsher]

as they always said, "everyone laughs at the old tank until it's aimed at them, because tank is better than no tank".

[@Deebosbikerepo]

I have to wonder: are these T-62's in more serviceable condition than the more modern(ish) T-72, T-80 and T-90 because they don't have the electronic components that may have been stripped and sold off by corrupt troops and officers?

[@tankman64]

That's what I was thinking. When you can find videos of people stealing all the electronics off of reserve tanks.

[@Arwiden]

You are probably joking - why break tanks when you can steal a toilet bowl from a Ukrainian and return home rich. Everyone knows that we do not have enough toilet bowls, there are no wallpapers, asphalt is generally a landmark, and a washing machine is something cosmic.

[@thoso1973]

They're junk by todays standards. To add, Russia doesn't do much maintenance of their newest equipment, so I reckon they do pretty much none for their old equipment, like this tank. A T-62 is basically an upgraded T-54/55 which was developed in the late 1940s.

[@tiagomorais8038]

​@@thoso1973 analphabet take

[@Flamechr]

Bingo

[@rrs_13]

I don't see why they wouldn't use outdated equipment if its operational or near operational. It's still a tank and will require the same caution and counter attack tactics and mechanisms as other tanks. It can be used for less active battle areas, for peacekeeping, or maybe those are actually all old footages and the Russians sold the majority of the t-62's to military of the separatist republics (the separatists have to have their own forces, after all). Even if they are just being used for soaking RPGs and anti-tank stuff, or as decoys etc, it is still a smart tactic to use material that you do not mind loosing and that you actually would spend more money to properly decommission it.

[@thiscouldntblowmore]

i think even the T-62 can still be real good, especially fighting infantry... especially if upgraded with cheap thermal sight.. Syria had something like this, bolt-on thermals for their tanks... "viper thermal sight", they bolted those to at least to T-72 and T-55, most likely to T-62's too.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Russian modern tanks dont have any good night vision or they would be moving and using them at night lmao hell that failed river crossing shows how much they cant fight at night as they didnt even try to do a major river crossing at night and that is with modern equipment

[@fartwimp]

Any tank that runs and has a good gun is a good tank but just remember to accept it's limitations.

[@Rubensky44]

yeah and no tank can survive bloody javelins

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@fartwimp not when you already have issue supplying the modern tanks and vehicles you have in service along with having to supply parts and other equipment

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@Mal101M then why wouldn't the Russian military do a major river crossing at night? or ANY tactical movement at night like any modern military would?

[@b.elzebub9252]

Ah good, I was hoping you would cover this!

[@SoloRenegade]

Russia: sucks at logistics Russia: sends 263 different types of combat vehicles to Ukraine.... (obviously I made up that number, but my point being that Russia has way too many types of everything, such that even if they had good logistics, they'd still struggle to maintain and supply so many different types of vehicles and weapon systems).

[@JNF590]

Imagine the Grumpy Old Motor pool mechanic Sargent with new recruit's repairing Damaged vehicles in all assortments 😂😂😂😂. Btw Ukraine is Receiving Tons of Different Artillery 155's same ordinance standard NATO but how about Part's and Crew Training?

[@Mr_Bunk]

@N Fels No-one’s denying that Scholz is in the wrong for being an abject coward about this whole war, but he is not an ally of Putin, and Putin himself is not left-wing. Your delirious claims are not helping your arguments at all, save your hatred for Putin and his _actual_ allies, like Jingping, Lukashenko and Orbán.

[@klarion]

It's actually the "Brows of Brezhnev" in common circles. . . because he had very thick eyebrows and was still around when the tanks were reinforced in such a way.

[@oisnowy5368]

Armour-wise they are about as effective as T-90's. Perhaps they even have a higher survivability, since they have no ammo-ring next to an autoloader. Having a 115mm gun means it does not compete for ammo with other vehicles. The Russians could use them as something like "we can do land-lease, just like the USA". Another question would be: can T-62's be towed by Ukrainian tractors as easily as the other Russian tanks?

[@SgtBeltfed]

Another point I've seen made elsewhere, there's plenty of T-62's in storage to scavenge parts from, so replacement parts might actually be easier to get. The T-72 family of tanks all have different levels of commonality with each other, so they may have stripped the stored T-72A's for usable parts already.

[@Kongongongg]

Go back to Reddit please. This comment is tacky as hell

[@kell7195]

@@Kongongongg Yep another mind-controlled MSM victim, Reddit army didnt do so well in Ukraine, perhaps he could reinforce them?

[@cannonfodder4376]

Most informative as always MHV. Cleared things up quite nicely in the time of misinformation.

[@h.a.9880]

Remember at the beginning of the war, when people said that Putin just doesn't yet commit his best troops for some reason. I guess this is now the mobilization of his most elite museum tanks. Next wave will include T-34s pried from WW2 monuments across Moscow. All joking aside, yeah, the T-62 is better than no tank at all, but it's ludircously outdated and my understanding is that it's essentially worthless in night combat. Even with the add-on armor, it's easy pickings for most ATGMs and poor maintenance, age and attacks will soon take their toll on these tanks, should they come anywhere near a frontline. This tank will be a strain on logistics, given that it has almost no interchangeable parts with what is currently in use in Ukraine. Bad mobility also makes it a prime target for long range artillery. Guess what Ukraine's been getting recently... The T-62 might be decent for second line duties, but ideally, you'd want to use something on the second line that would also perform halfway decent in frontline duty, in case there is a breakthrough or your frontline gets worn out. Russia falling back on T-62s might mean they are slowly running into trouble replacing their losses. It'll still take them months (at best) to run fully dry, but this doesn't bode well for them at all. Reports of anti-ship-missiles being used to hit land targets means they are also running out of guided missiles already.

[@danield9417]

Yea sure just how they ran out of iskandr missiles on the second day of the war and out of food and ammo in the first 3 weeks, somehow they’re still fighting and taking ground. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet

[@tomk3732]

Nah, this is just pro UA BS. T-62 is not that bad for back of the front duty for allied troops that are just training on tanks. They used anti ship missiles for like 2 months now. More BS. I heard about Russia running out of missiles 2 months ago.

[@h.a.9880]

@@tomk3732 You don't use anti-ship-missiles against buildings when more capable types of specialized missiles for that exact job are still abundant. You don't reactivate 50ish year old tanks with barely any chance of survival on the modern battlefield, when more modern and more capable designs are abundant. Russia has not been using a whole lot of guided bombs in this war and they've used insanely expensive and rare guided weapons against insignificant targets. You do not do that when everything's hunky dory. Furthermore, their attacks become increasingly more short range in nature. How long has it been since we've heard about missile attacks in Lwiw now, even though that's the route of reinforcements? At this moment, they make progress at a glacial speed in Donbass and nowhere else. They lost Kyiw and Kharkiw. And their main strength at this moment is artillery, which Ukraine is soon going to outrange with Western systems. Russia is going at it in a "everything plus the kitchen sink" approach. You don't do that when things go well. Russia has immense stockpiles of ammo and as I said, it will take months to exhaust them all, but the increasingly odd use of non-ideal technology in roles that it can barely work in shows some level of desperation to me. Lest we forget: Russia already admitted defeat when they scaled down their war plans from taking over all of Ukraine to... whatever the fuck it is they are doing now.

[@krismakardikan9823]

Your analysis is appreciated. Thank you for uploading.

[@yerpright7548]

One issue missed, where do the trained loaders come from?

[@keysersoze3427]

On the job training!

[@GreenGoblinDK]

You grab a guy from the street and you have a loader. Bio autoloader

[@tomhenry897]

Same place the “ trained “ T72 crews came from

[@OtterMusician]

I find it easier to tell the difference between the T-54/5 and T-62 by the location of the bore evacuator on the barrel - though I confess I don’t know much about tanks in general. It seems that the T-62 bore evacuator is usually in the middle of the barrel towards the end, while the T-55 bore evacuator is on the end of the barrel. Please correct me if I’m wrong (or even if I’m right), I would love to know more.

[@kell7195]

You are correct, this is the way we were taught to identify a T-62 and its more ovoid turret.

[@retriever7061]

The T-62 performed very well in Syria. When hit by a rocket, it does not tear off the tower. Then it is enough to wash the tank from the inside, put a new crew on board and you can continue to fight. Assad's troops did this several times.

[@pavlospb]

"с горки не спускать" is service text for railway workers explaining how to work with wagon on which tank is located in railway shunting yards. Analogy of "do not hump" on US railways

[@jnnfccc1794]

my theory still is that these vehicles are for the republics that Russia is creating in southern ukraine, which would fit into what the narrator was discussing about the tanks being for defense and not front line duty. Russia will not want to give its best equipment to Ukrainian conscripts, even if they are pledging loyalty. This equipment would slow down a breakthrough if it occurred and yet is not strong enough to worry Russia too much about a revolt.

[@klarion]

I heard versions that older volunteer troops would be given t-62s and will be used as mobile direct fire artillery.

[@CornCod1]

Very fair-minded analysis. The Russians have the habit of using older weapons for odd reasons. I recall footage of the Russians in the early 90's using a large battery of World War Two Era 85mm anti-tank guns in bombarding Grozny in the Chechen War. Maybe they are using the T-62's against the Ukranians because they don't want to lose too many T-80's and T-90's, which would be more useful if a general European War breaks out. Maybe the Russian-speaking breakaway republics are getting them.

[@Max-ke3ty]

Losing T-62s instead of a T-80 also means losing a crew that could have lived longer and be better trained. This isn't a video game - you never lose "just" the tank.

[@CornCod1]

@@Max-ke3ty Very true Max. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the amount of time and training it takes to "graduate" men from tanker training establishments in the US, Russia and other places.

[@Max-ke3ty]

@@CornCod1 As this war has shown, assume a Russian serviceman's life is cheaper and you'll rarely be mistaken. I'd assume 3-4 weeks per crew, if that.

[@patrickwentz8413]

Whelp that clears that up. Tanks a lot!

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

One more thing... Ukraine is full of Javelin, NLAW and similar modern ATGMs that can easily defeat any tank in this world. So, armor makes no difference; everything from WW2 era like Panzer 2 to say Abrams (as well as anything in between) will do the same against these. They will be knocked out. So, if the armor makes no difference, why send modern (and more expensive) stuff to get destroyed? Javelin probably even costs more than a T-62! Send old stuff to get blown, find ATGM team positions as they do it and hammer them with artillery, then move in with more modern stuff... Another possible use for T-62 might be defensive. Move them to defensive positions, dig them in, camouflage them or use them as mobile short range artillery... After all, there are words of Ukrainian offensive in Kherson region after a part of Russian force was relocated to the east. And situation changes a lot when it's not you rushing across the open fields and it's your enemy doing it this time. Thus, strengthening defense with these makes sense... Add what you mentioned in the video (availability and close location of storage) to the equation and it starts making even more sense...

[@Sshooter444]

All those modern weapons and the Russians are still winning

[@pedrosalvador6341]

@@Sshooter444 against one of the poorest countries in Europe, lol Imagine Hitler took 3 months just to conquer Danzig and call that a victory

[@kell7195]

Yeah if the Javlin and NLAW are so effective I wonder why the Russians are swarming all over Ukraine? Weird huh.

[@Fearls1]

Great information, thank you! By the way, wondering if you are fluent in more than 3 languages? I hear German, Ukraine and possibly Swedish mixed accents?

[@bremnersghost948]

Considering that a T62a was the Victim of the Longest Ranged Tank on Tank Kill in History back in 1991, I almost feel sorry for the Russian Conscripts that will have to use the T62 of any Variant, It's a Museum Piece!!

[@davidty2006]

Now the ukrainians sure don't have challie's just yet but yeah against modern western AT weapons they got no chance.

[@3o3tigger]

Hahaha you must not know that the Ukrainian army is using guns from the 1 ww .

[@bremnersghost948]

@@3o3tigger Basil Zaharoff would approve

[@brucetownsend691]

It is so refreshing to watch a video that is trying to get to the truth rather than just push a propaganda line or get views with click bait. A big thank you for your consistent efforts over many interesting videos about both historical and current military topics.

[@rochrich1223]

These tanks could be very effective in destroying an anti-tank missile. Also, if you buried them, they would make good bunkers.

[@christianweibrecht6555]

MHV can you make a comparison video between the T62 and Lepard 1?

[@tomhenry897]

Running out of T72s

[@Elbuarto]

They were supposed to have around 8000 mothballed T-72... It's baffling they opted to send T-62 instead.

[@ycplum7062]

Any outdated MBT can serve well as an infantry fire support vehicle. Personally, I would prefer wheeled armored vehicles for logistics security unless one expects heavy opposition.

[@mysteriousguy2681]

A T62 can be useful if suitable tasks are given to it but if Russians had that much tactical sense, this war would be long over or much harsher.

[@masa461]

Russia is trying to spare as many civilian lives as possible. This is not a war in some distant country inhabited by complete strangers, this is a de facto civil war. Many Russians have relatives in Ukraine, many Ukrainians are fighting on Russia's side. That is why Russia is using tactics that under other circumstances would look strange and unwise.

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

@@masa461 As many as possible: 1: stay out of Ukraine. 2: do not invade Ukraine. 3: ask the UN to send peacekeepers from, for instance, India, to keep the Donbass people safe. 4: don't start a war. Easy enough to spare civilian lives. Don't shoot.

[@masa461]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 This war began in 2014, when Yatsenyuk and Turchynov sent troops into the Donbass because the people there did not support the Maidan coup d'état. Ask the UN? Where has your UN been for the last 8 years? The Minsk agreements were an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation in the Donbass region, the Ukrainian government blocked and ignored them for 8 years.

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

@@masa461 sending troops is the best way to spare civilians, together with shooting down MH17. Then the Dutch trying to claim their dead from an area controlled bij the Donbas regions were being explained by anlot of bullets that Russia did not want them there. So where was the UN? Well, not kicked out by Ukraine.... Sorry to shatter your dreams. You are allowed to claim the west wants this war, but as long as Russian guns are firing, you have to couple your claim with how Russia and Putin do exactly what the west wants them to do: give them the war they want, according to you... Twist the truth all you want, the best you can get from it is a twisted lie. Putin read the Sun-Tzu and twisted the key line: avoid a war.. Master Tzu meant: no fighting. Putin makes everyone use a different name and thinks he is now smarter then him...

[@masa461]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 There are more than two sides to this war: Russians, Ukrainians, other Ukrainians, the West, and probably many more that we don't know about. Ukraine was split even before the Maidan, then violence began. I was there when the Maidan happened, I watched the people who later became the new Ukrainian government working hard to divide the nation. When you declare significant part of your population as " not true Ukrainians" because they disagree with you and do not support your political views and your actions, when you compare them to animals, celebrate the death of these people in a fire and joke about barbecue on national TV, when you send tanks to peaceful cities, don't be surprised that these people will turn against you and the other country will take advantage of this situation. You can portray Putin as Mr. Evil and Ukraine as his innocent victim all you want, but that is as far from the truth as blaming the West for everything. The West used Ukraine in the game against Russia, Putin took the bait, and the Ukrainian government did everything it could to make Ukraine a pawn in this game and destroy their own country. Sorry, but there are no good guys in this story.

[@donvanatta6545]

“С горки не спускать» on a railroad freight car is «do not hump” in English, meaning do not let the car freely roll downhill while being sorted into a new train in a railroad switch yard. The free-rolling car hits the string of cars to which it will be attached fairly hard, so if the cargo could shift.

[@alexeysaphonov232]

If it goes in this direction so Leopards 1 when and if they come could be formidable tanks on the fields. I know americans and some EU members still have some M60A5.

[@faraway2217]

there's no M60A5, what you meant is M48A5, which is M48 with 105mm gun (same gun with the M60 series), also US already retired the type in 2000s, and they're either sold to other countries or converted into firing targets

[@ticotube2501]

The Leopards will get to Ukraine either after the war is over or after the social democrats have run out of excuses for not providing heavy weapons that will help Ukraine against the aggressors.

[@alexeysaphonov232]

@@faraway2217 sorry A3. But yes, I made a quick reseach seems like majority of them are in Egypt, some in Greece and some in Brazil. Israel seems still has magach.

[@zloychechen5150]

The captions are obviously just for transportation by rail road. You see the same "don't roll from hill" on very many rail cars here in russia.

[@frankjrmuchnok2647]

If the rumors are true and Russia is conscipting old men now to fill the ranks, maybe the T62 is what they're most familiar with from their original time of service 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

[@ramonmartinsoto3717]

Do you realize how many people live in Russia? For them to be desperate enough to conscript old men they'd have to have lost more men in three months than they did in several years in ww2. It's utterly absurd to think that's anywhere close to factual. If they were conscripting people (which I doubt) they'd first call upon the two million reservists they have, which are of military age.

[@frankjrmuchnok2647]

Ramon, This was meant as a joke regarding the wild reporting that some channels have been indulging in as clickbait (old-men). I thought that was obvious but from now on if I comment I'll add "This is only a joke".

[@viacheslavzemlianski1654]

с горки не спускать - is a mark for a railroad personnel. Means "do not send to a hump yard". Used for fragile or hazardous cargo.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

I'm going to go with an assumption and go with my theory that the Russians are going to hire Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians who have experience in operating T-62s to fill the ranks in the war.

[@ww2hungary827]

they may be used as mobile artillery guns as well. they are tracked, have large calibre guns and have armour protection + they are on hand.

[@marco529]

The T-62 is a good tank and with a competent crew can be very successful in modern combat.

[@xi.na_]

Modern AT weapons disagree

[@Alex-vo2ce]

yes, a 60 years old tank can be very good in modern combat... how much did they pay you?

[@alphaniner3770]

a competent crew parks it to act as dummy drone bait

[@ChevyChase301]

@@xi.na_ wouldn’t modern AT weapons and drones destroy any tank short of a fully equipped centurion or Abrahams. I’ve even seen an iraqi Abraham’s destroyed by isis anti tank weapons so at this point what kind of tank is effective at avoiding being disabled/destroyed by modern at weapons and drones?

[@jimfarmer7811]

@@Alex-vo2ce I suppose we should immediately scrap the A-10 as well since it is roughly the same age?

[@2l84t]

Holding back the remaining T-72s for defense perhaps?

[@esenel92]

A lot of people are mentioning that IF they are using these tanks it's because they ran out of more modern tanks, but as this video also points out, I wonder if they are running out of ammo for the more modern ones, and are bringing in these tanks to pick up the slack. Lately a lot of the tanks that get blown up don't even seem to want to try competing in the turret throwing competitions anymore. Could it just be that they don't carry enough explosives because they have lost so much with their supply convoys getting wiped out early in the conflict?

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

It makes almost no sense to use a much older non-compatible tank. It is less resistant to damage, less capable of protecting limited tank crews. Just the logistics make it extremely impractical to have two different tank rounds and different mechanical systems.

[@vorrnth8734]

Protection of tank crews is irrelevant in russian doctrine.

[@entropy_of_principles]

For entertainment of flying towards them of St.Javelina, the show must be continued as the Freddy Mercury had said.

[@springbloom5940]

I would imagine they are to be delivered to LPR/DPR regional forces, to police controlled cities. In close contact, they're on even footing, because they're just as lethal to a Ukrainian T72, as it is to them. Both would be equally resistant to most light arms and both are just as vulnerable to ATGM. So in a, gun versus gun scenario, the superior numbers will have a distinct advantage.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

T62s are still much more vulnerable. Javelins and NLAWS aren’t the only weapon, far from it. Most are older. With a T62, even an extremely dated RPG-7 could penetrate frontally depending on the ammunition.

[@irdorath356]

LDPR are getting anyways any trophy the russians take. They have plenty of Ukrainian T-64s and 72s

[@springbloom5940]

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 Not with the uparmor. They have excellent RPG resistance, as proven in Syria. They're not going to spearhead them, they're going to use them for security in controlled areas, to free up more capable units for fighting.