The T-62

Described as having a formidable gun for its time ( the 115mm U-5TS smooth-bore gun ). How do you think it compared to its adversaries of the sixties and seventies?

I've also read that some where equipped with a 125mm gun. Is this correct?

 

Well, in terms of guns - the vast majority of Western MBTs were armed with updated versions of the British L7 105mm gun - which was a very good gun, and seemed to peove its worth against the Soviet armour deployed against Israel.

The Cheiftain (from 1967) had the L30 120mm gun, but I do not really know much about its performance.

 

The 115mm U-5TS smooth-bore gun came with two types of AT rounds. The HEAT-FS ( High Explosive Anti-Tank Fin-Stabilized ) and the APFSDS ( Armour-Piercing Fin-stabilized Discarding-Sabot ). The APFSDS had a muzzle velocity of 5510 ft/s and was capable of penetrating 330mm of armour at 1000m, while the HEAT-FS had a muzzle velocity of 2955 ft/s and could penetrate 430mm of armour at any range!?*

Could someone please explain this to me?

* 'The Directory of Modern Weapons', Chris Bishop

 

Hi Skua,

does your book have stats for the L7 and L30?

 

No, neither does my book about the Centurion ( L7 ).

I came up with this about the L11 at www.fas.org :

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... eftain.htm

'Armor Penetration (mm) INA'. Information not Available, whatever that means.

The L30 belongs to another era, doesn't it? My book ( 'The Directory of Modern Weapons'. And 'modern' here means early eighties ) doesn't even mention the L30. It does, however, say ( about the L11 ) that 'soon to be introduced into service is the APFSDS-T which will have a long rod-penetrator and will be capable of penetrating the armour of all known MBTs in service today'. But even this is a bit 'off the era'.

 

Sorry, I got confused between the L11 and L30 - my mistake.

 

HEAT-round doesn't rely on kinetic energy when doing its task.
HEAT-rounds are shaped charge projectiles, they rely on very high velocity jet of molten metal puncturing thru armour.
Bazooka, panzerschreck(sp?) and panzerfaust projectiles were also shaped charge projos and I believe even PIAT was also shooting shaped charge projectiles.

 

Silly me! I've been off the forum for too long I guess.

But still, are the stats correct?

 

Apparently yes, I found that question rather odd from you.

Cant tell about APFSDS but HEAT-FS penetration figures sound right.

 

For its era, the T-62 was unmatched in firepower and armor, with 240mm of turret armor (compared to 175mm on an M-60, and 70mm on a leopard 1) It could also be modified to sport a 155mm smoothbore cannon! US tests showed that with a 100mm cannon it could pierce 270mm of armor at 2km...

in 1973 a US report on captured Arab T-62's showed that the only manner in which US and Western European tanks beat it was in rate of fire, as the T-62 fired only 4 shells per minute. The T-62 was the best of its class (beating M-60's AMX30's Cents and Leopards), and was only outmatched by heavy tanks like the Chieftan, M-103 and the Conqueror, to which the soviets countered with the worse-but-much-cheaper T-10. it arguably remained the superior MBT until the arrival of the M1A1.

 

i dont know, but i think the reason HEAT rounds achieve such good armor penetration is because of the shells construction. a HEAT shell has explosives concentrated in the tip, while the back of the shell is made of a concave metal lining. the shell is exploded at a short distance from the armor, so that the explosive force is directed by the concave metal casing at a small spot, searing through the armor.

 

Link please!!! I assume you actually mean 152mm (155 is not a Soviet/ Russian calibre). First I've heard of this except for the M-69 Taran fitted to the experimetal Ob'ekt 120:
Designation M-69 "Taran" (Battering Ram)
Type Rifled
Caliber 152.4 mm
Features Bore Evacuator
Barrel length 9045 mm 60 calibres
AP round performance
Muzzle velocity 1720 m/s
Penetration 290mm RHA plate at 90° at 2000m
from Vasily Fofanov's site at
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/

 

hmmm, mut be wrong then... so far i've found only three sources indicating the T-62A could be fitted with a 155mm gun... none of them credible. perhaps they are all typos for 125mm? i'll keep looking

 

Uh - the Cheiftain was not a 'heavy' tank, it was an MBT...

 

whats the difference between a MBT and a heavy tank then?

It's weight means that it would be classified as heavy in WW2 speak

Presumably at some point after the war, medium tanks were dropped leaving light tanks and heavy tanks which were now called MBT's

FNG

 

Well, after WW2 it all changed a bit...

You still had light tanks (M41 for example) and Heavy tanks (M103 for example) but 'Medium' kinda got replaced by 'MBT'. It was not a straight swap, but the evolution of the role. The medium tank in WW2 was simply the tank that was the best compromise between fighting ability and ease/cost of production, and was therefore the most common tank in a country's forces and the most average in terms of fighting ability.
The MBT concept is a tank that is both the most common tank, but without a compromise in terms of fighting ability, as it needs to be able to stand up to 'heavy' tanks if necessary. Many people cite the Panther as the first 'MBT' - an excellent all-round tank that was as good against infantry as it was against tanks, and could slug it out with the best the enemy could offer (mostly).

I'm not sure I explained it very clearly - but then it is not a very clear concept!

Anybody have a better definition?

 

MBT came about as a search for a "universal tank" (David Fletcher's series of WWII Brit tanks has the third volume actually called Universal Tank) - one that could do the majority of jobs on the battlefield. Fast enough to be used forward (but not recce), heavy enough armour to slug it out with the majority of targets and armed well enough to kill most of those. And affordable enough to buy in required numbers (not just in £/$/ Francs or whatever, but also in manufacturing terms - for example making armour 1inch thicker may require a complete new casting/ rolling plant, making the gun an extra 10mm in calibre may require a complete new milling machine to make the turret ring, etc)
A heavy tank was intended to be used largely in overwatch roles (Conqueror, M103) and pick off targets at long range (although I could never understand why, if they were designed for long-range "sniping" as it were, they required such heavy armour - to my way of thinking the longer the range you're engaging at the less armour you need... maybe something with Scorpion mobility and armour and a 200mm AT gun?? But then I was never asked )
Cost, mobility and intended use count for more than actual armour, weight or gun size in designations it seems.

 

The Americans went down that route a bit with their WW2 tank destroyers. As far as I recall they didn't work out all that well. In a long range sniper that is for defensive work heavy armour has a lot going for it. If they have to get close to you to penatrate than you have to get to them then you can sit back taking potshots as they close.

Better question would be it these were long range sniper why put on a turret?

 

I thought that US TDs were used fairly close up. Conqueror etc were intended to stay on the start line and pick off stuff "coming over the hill", well before normal engagement ranges.
I agree, limited traverse would have been better, and I still advocate high mobility and light armour, take a shot, relocate, take another, relocate, ad infintum...

 

I'd prefer armour and lots of it. Plus a gun that allows me to reach out a crush someone.