The T72 was mostly an export tank. The baby NATO would have been more concerned about was the T64. The two are superficially very similar but the T64 was a major advancement with many new features. The Soviets tended to keep the best stuff in reserve but the T72 seems to have equipped many Warsaw Pact allies. The T62 was a tank of its day and I guess it is adequate when most other armies have/had T54/55s or even still T34s as was in Angola.
back in it's day the T-62 was a real powerhouse. But I can't help but feel as Afghanistan slides back into Theocracy that the new crews would more prefer to use them on Romanians and Americans, or any secular government.
Few people realise just how effective that 115mm smoothbore actually is. Although it would struggle against more modern tanks, it still is a major threat. T-62's still have great potential on the modern battlefield. The only downside, is that to actually defeat modern armour, it would require DU rounds, instead of the standard steel rounds it has.
@thelleht have you ever heard of the Battle of Grozny?? i'm gonna guess HELL NO because then you wouldnt make dumb comments like that. During that battle, the Russian army lost around 150-200 of their modernized t-80 tanks to RPG-7's which proves that Soviet/Russian Tanks SUCK against infantry using even old anti-tank weapons. The Taliban are pro's at the RPG-7 and would set these ancient tanks alight
@samuraispirit88 80 T-80 at whole 1st Chechen war actually. Also this tanks were destroed with soviet weapons, which were disigned to destroy such targets. I mean those who crated this weapons knew all weak places in the tanks, in T-80 too.
@samuraispirit88 only at close range. If they would add some further protection grates to the tank, RPG-7 is useless. You fire, give away your position and then "game over".
@Cougar545x39 I see your point man, but if military history has taught us anything, it is that Soviet Tanks are useless in cities and mountains, because they are lightly armored and they cant elevate their guns high enough to blast fighters hiding in mountains and on roofs of buildings. I think that instead of buying 10 T-62's, they're better off buying one NATO tank, because those tanks are much more protected and have stronger firepower.
@samuraispirit88 You are right NATO tanks can depress their guns to lower or higher elevation, those T-2's werent bought though, they were already there in Alfghanistan becuase of the soviet Alghan war. MBTs wont serve any good either NATO or other, becuas ehte war in Alfghanistan is a low intesity conflict requiring apcs or ifvs and better helicopters.
@samuraispirit88 YOU are a dumbass, 200 T80.... Poor of you, they lost about 100 armor, inluding only 20 MBT, and not all were T80, and the said MBT werent equiped with ERA, and used with poor tactics against tank killers squad firing 5-7 RPG salvo at ONE tank roof/motor.
That only prooves you know nothing, and russian tanks are the best.
@samuraispirit88 LOL always the same faggot ass moron like u, i'm tired....You are a FAGGOT YOU BITCH AND YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ON TANKS, GO HIDE ! RUSSIAN TANKS NEVER FACED NATO TANKS OF THE SAME GENERATION, and never with russian crew and tactics. IF you are arguing with IRAQ as an example, you are wrong from A to Z, because iraq was third world army with monkey soldiers, monkey weapons, and were totaly outnumbered, ravaged by airstrikes.
@PATRONSKiii i'll agree with this statement Russian Armor has never faced off against Nato armor in combat. I would say however that Western Tank crews are most likely better trained then their Russian counterparts due to the whole mess with the Russian army after the collapse. The problem with the modern Russian tank the T-90 is there is only several hundred of them and i would say they are equal to the M1A2 post Iraq. But the Numerical advantage gives the Abrams the edge.
@spyderc85 nato tanks (primarily israeli centurian,and u.s m60) faced off against soviet tanks during the october war,..1973..
egypt and syria attacked israel on yom kippour.. some of the largest tank battles occured at that time that in some cases rivaled the battle of kursk. google the battles of the golan heights..or the battle of chinese farm.. cheers mate.
@samuraispirit88 Russian tanks are pretty good, but i assume you are making assumptions based of Iraq and other countries that use these tanks.First of all those countries tank crews are inexperianced, insufficient training, uneducated, outdated doctrine, and U.S.S.R delivered downgraded versions of their tanks for export, which did not have range finder or thermal sights, downgrded gun stablization equiptment, also the ammunition is a knock off compared to soviet armored forces.
@PATRONSKiii You can't say Russian Tanks are the best, the older ones have horrible track records in combat, and the newer ones i.e. T-80, T-90 have never really been tested against anything except older soviet design Tanks. The T-72 for example has a horrible track record against the Challenger, Abrams, and M60A3. Yea they were Russian tanks but Iraqi but still its a T-72 and not that much different from the Russian equipped ones.
@spyderc85 Iraqi T72 not that much different to russian ones ? It's a joke I hope, iraqi had no modern armour, no decent ammunition, end-lifed barrels, 500 000$ of optics and optronics removed from orginal one to have them cheaper, poor motors, and ahead everything, poor crews, terrible tactics and were vastly outnumbered. A real russian T72B is an other world, not even considering the crew and tactics quality.
@PATRONSKiii ya i just read about the ammo that was given out for the T-72M yeah inferior might be an understatement. I'll agree 100% about the crews. Althought there are reports that Iraqi Republican Guard Lion of Babylon tanks seemed to have laminate armor on the front slopes. the majority were prob T-72M but there were some that were modified using Foregin optics prob Chinese. So they werent up to Russian standards but they werent stripped down T-72Ms either.
@aussieblackhawk123 Think of a tanks as a "battlefield bully". It could blast enemy strong points and fire on them from stand-off distances. Fragmentation rounds could wipe out a whole group of enemies at once. The soviets made sure their tanks could kill infantry so the guns used were designed with an anti-infantry capability. You don't lead with tanks in an irregular war but a big gun immune to a lot of enemy weapons is a very useful thing. In the right situation.
@Scoutrussp7 USSR never used 105mm gun/mortar/howitzer even a century before. T55 uses 100mm gun, far inferior to the britsh L7 105mm gun/ammo. 115mm T62 gun is much powerful, but innacurate, and now surpassed (largely) by 105mm ammo improvements. 125mm russian however, is the best tank gun on the earth.
@PATRONSKiii its hard to make that conclusion the 120MM gun of the Abrams is up there and the longer barreled 120mm gun of the Leapord 2 which is rumored to be going in the M1A3 is i think defenitly comparable to the Russian 125mm
@Stigx1337 The T-62 has been in service since 1961 so yes it is a pile of crap by today's standards. When it was introduced it as far ahead of Western tank designs.
and its an effective weapon even for todays standards, but it is totaly worthless when it is put against modern western counterparts without any decent air support as well as we have seen in iraq. tanks as these are very cheap to obtain and require little to maintain that is why they are still used almost everywhere.
the t-62 is a pretty good tank it could probably destroy an abrams,,,,,,,,,,,, it doesnt matter what the tank ,,,,,,,,,its the men behind and thier training
it could probably destroy an Abrams if the Abrams had a crew with zero experience. And if it manages to go right behind the Abrams and unload an APDS shell into the Abrams at point blank range. Otherwise it's very difficult to take out an Abrams with this Cold War era tank
there are many tanks that can be taken out by an rpg-29, it's a pretty damn powerful weapon compared to the rpg-7. Even a British Challenger 2 got penetrated by an rpg-29 before and Challenger 2s are so well armoured.
you do not get RPG 29 on the market.. The reason the Afghan Resistance Fighters use RPG 7.. because Pakistan and Iran producing the rockets.. thats all.. if Iran will be able to Produce own RPG 29.. so you will see them very fast on the Afghan battle ground. I do not believe Taliban Resistance will use RPG against any Nato Tank.. makes no sence at all
Old tanks are gutted and inserted in the tanks. Of course this is a cost reduction. the optical sight telescope range finder is produced only in China and North Korea and its night view system is less fine to the old laser system of the T72. I believe they use burnt-out parts of there old tanks and do not buy them in China. Also a lot of worse armour plating has the T62. A hit of a RPG7 not necessarily destructive for a T72, however, for a T62 it is for sure first of all a stop..
Not necessarily, most of the insurgents lack access to dedicated antitank rockets for their RPG-7s (HEAT rounds). They tend to use high explosive rounds to inflict casualties on US and Afghan infantry, those rockets can penetrate Humvees but probably not a tank, not even an old one.
A shame.. to let the Afghan Army use weapons of the 70`s. T72 from Chech Republic you get with latest Technology for less than 15 Million $ The Soviets gave the communist Army of Afghanistan those Wepons.. and the NATO dont have any money to find new Technology for them?
The T72 was mostly an export tank. The baby NATO would have been more concerned about was the T64. The two are superficially very similar but the T64 was a major advancement with many new features. The Soviets tended to keep the best stuff in reserve but the T72 seems to have equipped many Warsaw Pact allies. The T62 was a tank of its day and I guess it is adequate when most other armies have/had T54/55s or even still T34s as was in Angola.
FrancoHitlini 6 months ago
AFG proud
siyarafg 7 months ago
ana N E W t-62 tanks xD
Metallor666 7 months ago
The T-90 is one hell of a tank
BUT
there just is not enough of them....
the Indians with downgraded models have more T-90s than there are in Russia itself.
MSR8MASR 9 months ago
hey guys, how come you say that t-62 is better than t-72? i just need a clear explanation(s), just curious between the two
8900609 9 months ago
only up side to T-72 is that crew is better protected from PRGs it can still get knocked out pretty esely by them though.
BirgirZ 1 year ago
Everybody on here is a stupid, faggot, bithc, ass, motherfucker and don't know a shit about tanks!!!
shatchett0 1 year ago
back in it's day the T-62 was a real powerhouse. But I can't help but feel as Afghanistan slides back into Theocracy that the new crews would more prefer to use them on Romanians and Americans, or any secular government.
Highice007 1 year ago
Some better electronics (FCS, periscopes, battlefield managment etc.) + add-on composite armor (Mexas-H or AMAP?) and this tank would be really nice.
tim92vogt 1 year ago
Few people realise just how effective that 115mm smoothbore actually is. Although it would struggle against more modern tanks, it still is a major threat. T-62's still have great potential on the modern battlefield. The only downside, is that to actually defeat modern armour, it would require DU rounds, instead of the standard steel rounds it has.
TheJojo45678 1 year ago
@thelleht have you ever heard of the Battle of Grozny?? i'm gonna guess HELL NO because then you wouldnt make dumb comments like that. During that battle, the Russian army lost around 150-200 of their modernized t-80 tanks to RPG-7's which proves that Soviet/Russian Tanks SUCK against infantry using even old anti-tank weapons. The Taliban are pro's at the RPG-7 and would set these ancient tanks alight
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 80 T-80 at whole 1st Chechen war actually. Also this tanks were destroed with soviet weapons, which were disigned to destroy such targets. I mean those who crated this weapons knew all weak places in the tanks, in T-80 too.
LLIJIbIK 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 only at close range. If they would add some further protection grates to the tank, RPG-7 is useless. You fire, give away your position and then "game over".
Cougar545x39 1 year ago
@Cougar545x39 I see your point man, but if military history has taught us anything, it is that Soviet Tanks are useless in cities and mountains, because they are lightly armored and they cant elevate their guns high enough to blast fighters hiding in mountains and on roofs of buildings. I think that instead of buying 10 T-62's, they're better off buying one NATO tank, because those tanks are much more protected and have stronger firepower.
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 You are right NATO tanks can depress their guns to lower or higher elevation, those T-2's werent bought though, they were already there in Alfghanistan becuase of the soviet Alghan war. MBTs wont serve any good either NATO or other, becuas ehte war in Alfghanistan is a low intesity conflict requiring apcs or ifvs and better helicopters.
MrEricenriquez 11 months ago
@samuraispirit88 YOU are a dumbass, 200 T80.... Poor of you, they lost about 100 armor, inluding only 20 MBT, and not all were T80, and the said MBT werent equiped with ERA, and used with poor tactics against tank killers squad firing 5-7 RPG salvo at ONE tank roof/motor.
That only prooves you know nothing, and russian tanks are the best.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii wtf are you talking about bitch? you cant even write in English, so i suggest you do that first fag.
point is, Russian tanks suck dick when facing NATO tanks because they lack the armor, fire-power, and aiming systems to win.
go studying some more before talking here jackoff
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 LOL always the same faggot ass moron like u, i'm tired....You are a FAGGOT YOU BITCH AND YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ON TANKS, GO HIDE ! RUSSIAN TANKS NEVER FACED NATO TANKS OF THE SAME GENERATION, and never with russian crew and tactics. IF you are arguing with IRAQ as an example, you are wrong from A to Z, because iraq was third world army with monkey soldiers, monkey weapons, and were totaly outnumbered, ravaged by airstrikes.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii i'll agree with this statement Russian Armor has never faced off against Nato armor in combat. I would say however that Western Tank crews are most likely better trained then their Russian counterparts due to the whole mess with the Russian army after the collapse. The problem with the modern Russian tank the T-90 is there is only several hundred of them and i would say they are equal to the M1A2 post Iraq. But the Numerical advantage gives the Abrams the edge.
spyderc85 9 months ago 3
@spyderc85 nato tanks (primarily israeli centurian,and u.s m60) faced off against soviet tanks during the october war,..1973..
egypt and syria attacked israel on yom kippour.. some of the largest tank battles occured at that time that in some cases rivaled the battle of kursk. google the battles of the golan heights..or the battle of chinese farm.. cheers mate.
goyim1999 2 months ago
@samuraispirit88 Russian tanks are pretty good, but i assume you are making assumptions based of Iraq and other countries that use these tanks.First of all those countries tank crews are inexperianced, insufficient training, uneducated, outdated doctrine, and U.S.S.R delivered downgraded versions of their tanks for export, which did not have range finder or thermal sights, downgrded gun stablization equiptment, also the ammunition is a knock off compared to soviet armored forces.
MrEricenriquez 11 months ago
@PATRONSKiii You can't say Russian Tanks are the best, the older ones have horrible track records in combat, and the newer ones i.e. T-80, T-90 have never really been tested against anything except older soviet design Tanks. The T-72 for example has a horrible track record against the Challenger, Abrams, and M60A3. Yea they were Russian tanks but Iraqi but still its a T-72 and not that much different from the Russian equipped ones.
spyderc85 9 months ago
@spyderc85 Iraqi T72 not that much different to russian ones ? It's a joke I hope, iraqi had no modern armour, no decent ammunition, end-lifed barrels, 500 000$ of optics and optronics removed from orginal one to have them cheaper, poor motors, and ahead everything, poor crews, terrible tactics and were vastly outnumbered. A real russian T72B is an other world, not even considering the crew and tactics quality.
PATRONSKiii 9 months ago
@PATRONSKiii ya i just read about the ammo that was given out for the T-72M yeah inferior might be an understatement. I'll agree 100% about the crews. Althought there are reports that Iraqi Republican Guard Lion of Babylon tanks seemed to have laminate armor on the front slopes. the majority were prob T-72M but there were some that were modified using Foregin optics prob Chinese. So they werent up to Russian standards but they werent stripped down T-72Ms either.
spyderc85 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
t 62 is piece of shit is destroy by israeli centurion
RIEKSONE 2 years ago
But are the ANA fighting an army? no they are fighting terrorists...terrorists with only a handful of ak-47s RPGs and Bombs..Not tanks or planes..
aussieblackhawk123 2 years ago
@aussieblackhawk123 Think of a tanks as a "battlefield bully". It could blast enemy strong points and fire on them from stand-off distances. Fragmentation rounds could wipe out a whole group of enemies at once. The soviets made sure their tanks could kill infantry so the guns used were designed with an anti-infantry capability. You don't lead with tanks in an irregular war but a big gun immune to a lot of enemy weapons is a very useful thing. In the right situation.
colddrake80 1 year ago
T-62 isn't MBT, it's a tank destroyer. In that time standart soviet tank gun was 105mm, this tank got 115-mm.
Scoutrussp7 2 years ago
@Scoutrussp7 USSR never used 105mm gun/mortar/howitzer even a century before. T55 uses 100mm gun, far inferior to the britsh L7 105mm gun/ammo. 115mm T62 gun is much powerful, but innacurate, and now surpassed (largely) by 105mm ammo improvements. 125mm russian however, is the best tank gun on the earth.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii its hard to make that conclusion the 120MM gun of the Abrams is up there and the longer barreled 120mm gun of the Leapord 2 which is rumored to be going in the M1A3 is i think defenitly comparable to the Russian 125mm
spyderc85 9 months ago
This tank fuck up Abrams in Gulf War !!!
Vykuk123 2 years ago
@Vykuk123 narrr it was more the other way round...we used to laugh at this peice of shit!
even the tnaks main gun was crap.. it's 115mm apds rounds bounced off tanks like the british Challenger 1and even that crappy tank the USA's M1 tank!
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
@Vykuk123 no it didnt. lol
ele90 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry Russian's, T-62 is a pile of crap
Stigx1337 2 years ago
@Stigx1337 The T-62 has been in service since 1961 so yes it is a pile of crap by today's standards. When it was introduced it as far ahead of Western tank designs.
Calumet1978 2 years ago
@Calumet1978
I guess a tank is better than no tank.
DavidVanPatten 1 year ago
Oh my guy sells it for 10 dollar
I know some guy to.
guitarheroNL 2 years ago
Old but good tank
Prorok107 2 years ago
охуенный танк!!!
svm1306 2 years ago
You can buy 84 t-62 for 1 Abram tank
JupilerNL 2 years ago
where on the market you buy it? for sure US will not sell Abram Technology to other countries.
Gintoxiccc 2 years ago
i think in Russia Couse they still Have them but they dont use them they sell it At Afghanistan and india and Pakistan and the other 3world countrys
JupilerNL 2 years ago
i can give you abraham 5 euro,
Iknow some guy
1000weedUser 2 years ago
T62 is good enough for afghanistans purposes.
and its an effective weapon even for todays standards, but it is totaly worthless when it is put against modern western counterparts without any decent air support as well as we have seen in iraq. tanks as these are very cheap to obtain and require little to maintain that is why they are still used almost everywhere.
ixyoux1 2 years ago
take off the price,,,
price is not needing in here comment
bestamerica 2 years ago
the t-62 is a pretty good tank it could probably destroy an abrams,,,,,,,,,,,, it doesnt matter what the tank ,,,,,,,,,its the men behind and thier training
smoothieking850 2 years ago
it could probably destroy an Abrams if the Abrams had a crew with zero experience. And if it manages to go right behind the Abrams and unload an APDS shell into the Abrams at point blank range. Otherwise it's very difficult to take out an Abrams with this Cold War era tank
mTk56 2 years ago
aint that tank pretty old, one rpg 29 can take it out
filippioss 2 years ago
An RPG-29 can take out any time...
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
there are many tanks that can be taken out by an rpg-29, it's a pretty damn powerful weapon compared to the rpg-7. Even a British Challenger 2 got penetrated by an rpg-29 before and Challenger 2s are so well armoured.
mTk56 2 years ago
you do not get RPG 29 on the market.. The reason the Afghan Resistance Fighters use RPG 7.. because Pakistan and Iran producing the rockets.. thats all.. if Iran will be able to Produce own RPG 29.. so you will see them very fast on the Afghan battle ground. I do not believe Taliban Resistance will use RPG against any Nato Tank.. makes no sence at all
Gintoxiccc 2 years ago
@mTk56 the RPG-29 penetrated the FRONTAL HULL of the Chally 2.
GooRooGo 1 year ago
lol
what didnt the middle east take from Russia? hahah
rosher22 2 years ago
Yah with the help of the US.
ele90 2 years ago
T62! Still a great tank!
Redcoat66 2 years ago
T-62's > T-72 when working in mountains. Thats why you can find T-62M's operating in the khavkaz.
SeverEnergia 2 years ago 10
Old tanks are gutted and inserted in the tanks. Of course this is a cost reduction. the optical sight telescope range finder is produced only in China and North Korea and its night view system is less fine to the old laser system of the T72. I believe they use burnt-out parts of there old tanks and do not buy them in China. Also a lot of worse armour plating has the T62. A hit of a RPG7 not necessarily destructive for a T72, however, for a T62 it is for sure first of all a stop..
Gintoxiccc 2 years ago
Not necessarily, most of the insurgents lack access to dedicated antitank rockets for their RPG-7s (HEAT rounds). They tend to use high explosive rounds to inflict casualties on US and Afghan infantry, those rockets can penetrate Humvees but probably not a tank, not even an old one.
mTk56 2 years ago
A shame.. to let the Afghan Army use weapons of the 70`s. T72 from Chech Republic you get with latest Technology for less than 15 Million $ The Soviets gave the communist Army of Afghanistan those Wepons.. and the NATO dont have any money to find new Technology for them?
Gintoxiccc 2 years ago
Good vid!!
judokadinu 2 years ago