Ukraine thoughts..

[masterKamera]

 

 

Thus should not the T-62 tanks being sent to ukraine from warehouse storage systems once the T 72, T80, T90 however this snippet 

 

several thousands T-72s in use around the world. Not surprisingly, the biggest user is still Russia, with about 2,500 in active service and another 8,000 in reserve. As of September 2016, about a thousand T-72s have been upgraded into B3 models, according  to a Russian defense site.

 

So many damaged T-72s in Iraq blew their turrets off that U.S. troops called them “jack-in-the-boxes.”

While Russia has 3,500 T-80s and a maximum 2000 T-62 of all types

 

from  This Is the Story of the Old Russian Tank That Can Still Fight the World's Best Armor | The National Interest

 

Ukraines government has the claim of having killed 1,000 actual russian TANKS... not those little APC things... those have a seperate kill tally...  Outside agencies feel its only 700 russian tanks killed. 

 

 

This raises the questions of  

 

Actual Russian tank strength, if 100 days of fighting and 700-1000 killed tanks, of all types t72 through t90m, have somehow forced them to skip past the reserve 8000 T72, and go to the oldest post ww2 design that is well known to be a death trap..

 

Was russia trying to even WIN this fight?

    THey have already gotten secondary objectives:

           Stealing wheat and destroying what they cant take, and forcing the merchant ships loaded with wheat to stay in port.

           Steal computer data from the Chernobyl reactor containment people and attack other reactor buildings in Ukraine.

           Getting europe in a tizzy over getting WHEAT, that european agencies are filing protests on the international level because India has decided to stop exporting wheat for the future. 

 

L

 

[colin]

I think this may get closed down, far to political for BM

[Whitewolf]

Putting all politics aside, the T62 issue is interesting. Estimates of what Russia has in reserve are questionable in themselves......as to what percentage are actually serviceable is an even bigger mystery.....

[echen]

One hears lots of stories about parts being stolen from stored military equipment and sold but, with the customary "security" in that neck of the woods, it's difficult to separate the truth from the porkies and to establish what Mr. Putin has in his pocket for the future.

[magman2]

A Musket ball will kill you, the age off a killing machine dose not matter it still kills.

Sadly the Ukraine has become a Charnel house for both sides. 

I hope Peace will come Soon. R. I.P to the fallen. 🕊️

 

[echen]

@magman2 Wise words.

5 minutes ago, magman2 said:

I hope Peace will come Soon. R. I.P to the fallen. 

Amen

[masterKamera]

4 hours ago, Whitewolf said:

Putting all politics aside, the T62 issue is interesting. Estimates of what Russia has in reserve are questionable in themselves......as to what percentage are actually serviceable is an even bigger mystery.....

And thats the question,,,, 

 

If they cant afford to field any of the currently in active service t-72, 7-80 or t-90  series tanks, and instead have to go directly into the "the motherland has been invaded adn we need to slow them down by providing copious amounts of targets" T-62 series tanks..

 

One has to ponder how much do they even have any more, and is the age of the "overwhelming soviet armor breakout through the mountain passes" that lead to the creation of the David Crocket nuclear weapon,  still something to worry about.

[Whitewolf]

I think they have already lost substantial numbers of more current models and conscious of just how many they can afford to lose without truly weakening the Russian Army overall. They have to consider how they are going to replace  those lost and the time periods involved to achieve that.

[sinnerboy]

3

[echen]

8 minutes ago, sinnerboy said:

3

3?

[JohnT]

3 hours ago, echen said:

3?

@sinnerboy meant 2

[Kingsman]

I think this thread began by being far too political, and that has continued.  There are plenty of places on Facebook to discuss the politics and beliefs of the situation and the stories, rumours and propaganda concerning the conflict.  This is a site for modelling.  Technical facts, yes.  Technical speculation, inevitable.  Discussion of the technology of modelling subjects, absolutely.  In "technical" and "technology" I include colours and markings, stowage, uniforms etc.  Artefacts.

 

To some extent, even discussing the reasoning behind deploying T-62s is stretching the point.  Ascertaining what model of T-62, what modifications or variations they may have and how they may be painted and marked is certainly fair game.  It is being done: fact.  From a modelling perspective why is not really relevant but is probably interesting to many of us because of its unexpectedness.  But there is a discussion there which avoids the political whys and wherefores.

 

It is clear that Russian T-64 - 90 MBTs are not survivable against modern ATGW.  A situation that applies equally to Ukrainian T-64s and T-84s and donated T-72s, and plenty of KO'd T-64s have been seen on the newsreels.  This is essentially because they all have 22-ish unprotected combustible propelling charges in the autoloader carousels.  Introducing an internal heat and blast wave and incendiary explosive jet from a HEAT warhead detonation will have inevitable consequences in the same way that APHE did in WW2. This is WW2 survivability standards, noting that water-jacketed ammunition stowage was introduced in 1944 and reduced M4 ammunition explosions by 2/3.  The vulnerability of Soviet designs with autoloaders, notably the T-72, have been exposed before as noted earlier.  Their external protection systems which still seem to rely extensively on ERA are clearly ineffective, although the top-attack mode of weapons like Javelin and NLAW are designed specifically to exploit the vulnerability of upper surfaces - a weakness not really addressed since WW2.

 

The T-62 does not have an autoloader, having only a mechanical spent case ejector for its huge brass cartridge cases.  But like the autoloader that system brings a slow, if consistent, rate of fire of about 6-8 rpm because of the cycle time.  Its ammunition is perhaps better protected and it may therefore be somewhat more survivable.  And its 115mm gun is still a highly effective weapon capable of penetrating 70+cm of steel armour.  Remember that Iraqi T-62s were taking out Iranian Chieftains - a notably well-protected tank with turret armour up to 58cm thick in places - in their conflict in the 80's.  Target engagement systems will have been upgraded but are probably not on a par with upgraded more modern tanks.  But this may not be that much of a problem with Russia seemingly deploying tanks primarily for infantry support - but without supporting close combat infantry - and there being little in the way of armoured warfare so far.  However, as the gun has to go off aim to return to a set position for the auto-eject to work there are no follow-up shots to a 1st-round miss.  Each shot is a re-acquisition of effectively a new target, a problem shared with the later autoloader-equipped tanks.  Unlike manually-loaded guns where the gunner can remain in the aim and correct while the human loader is reloading.  But these deficiencies did not matter in the doctrine of the Soviet era when they were mostly designed.  Even T-84 and T-90 are just evolutions of T-80 and T-72 respectively and have many of the same design limitations.

 

Another nemesis of MBTs is heavy artillery in the 152-155mm category.  One of the reasons for the demise of 105mm artillery in favour of 155mm in the West is that 105mm simply does not have the weight of fire, range and individual round lethality to deal with armoured formations.  Whereas 155mm systems with projectiles in the 40-50kg category and ranges out to 30+km with base bleed or rocket assistance are well able to disrupt armoured formations and destroy MBTs.  Again, often with plunging high-trajectory top-attack impact.  For this reason Western MLRS have migrated to having fewer but larger guided projectiles over time.  Not that the Soviet-standard 122mm ballistic MLRS is an ineffective weapon, especially en masse.

 

And if your latest and most expensive tanks are ultimately no more survivable and only a little less effective than the older ones, why wouldn't you sacrifice the older ones first?  Whether there is the necessary depth and competence of logistic support to keep the T-62s serviceable and operational and whether they were adequately prepared and preserved for long-term storage and adequately maintained during storage all remain to be seen.  After the Cold War ended it was discovered that there were long-term significant deficiencies in logistic support and equipment serviceability across all 3 Soviet armed forces.  It seems that this may not have improved significantly.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Das Abteilung
Saved too soon

[masterKamera]

from a modelling standpoint,  

 

How will we determine what constitutes enough data points via newsreel and photography of these soviet T62s to determine

          -what units originally had t62 tanks

           -how many different units

           -as these still have the warehouse inventory data painted on them in big white letters, with the original unit markings from their last

             service units still on them as well. 

                         Will we be able to determine the number of tank units that were mothballed versus sent to the steel smelter

                

[StuartH]

Interesting thread about the lack of maintenance on the tyres of Russian wheeled vehicles. Also believed to be cheap Chinese tyres more prone to splitting:

 

 

[Tojo72]

Political ??? No way,this thread is very tame,just a few observations,in no way has it gone off the rails.

Just wondering about T-14's are they operational,have they been deployed,how many,are they effective.

[Mike]

16 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

I think this thread began by being far too political, and that has continued. 

Just seen it now.  Been busy.

 

It's far to raw and recent to be discussing without eventually devolving into something unpleasant, which I'm not prepared to take the risk on