ground vehicles USSR T-62M-1 mod. 1983 for 9.0/3

[RefrigerRaider 563]

 

(Before you read) :

This model of the T-62 is the T-62M-1 (a fundamentally different derivative under the T-62M variant). This is different from the T-62M as the T-62M-1 is equipped with the V-46-5M engine , a derivative of the engine from the T-72 that generates 780 horsepower! 

I believe this is an acceptable suggestion since the M60a1 RISE Passive, is an 80s era tank, the MBT-70 can fire atgms from its gun. All these tanks are in game, this makes it an acceptable Tier VI suggestion.

 

 

Also:

This suggestion is meant to complement my previous suggestions for these other tanks for 9.0/3

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents: 

I. Introduction

II. Photos and Videos

III. Suggested Stats and Features

IV. Additional Information

V. References

 

I. Introduction

 

A heavily modified T-62 variant in the 1980s to counter increasingly more dangerous threats from NATO.  The T-62, born out of the 1960s, was getting obsolete. During the 1980s, the T-62 still comprised about a quarter of the Soviet tank force . As a result, upgrades were made to make it up to par in performance with the T-64 and T-72.

 

II. Photos and Videos

 

 

 

 

T-62M with slat armor, Afghan War. This one has its 10mm thick rubber side track panels replaced with slat armor to combat shaped charges. Notice the gun thermal sleeve



 

Entire T-62M column during Afghan War, all with slat armor



 

T-62M, in Afghanistan , Notice the slat armor, the turret rear side has a large slat panel, while the hull sides has 5 (1 small, 4 large)



 

Another M model in Afghanistan during the war, with slat armor. Notice the gun thermal sleeve



 

An M model in Afghanistan, without slat armor, equipped with 10mm rubber side track panels instead.



 

A entire two columns of M models in Afghanistan, notice the Soviet troops in Afghan war uniforms, no slat armor, all equipped with the standard rubber side panels instead



 

 

T-62M convoy in Afghanistan during the war, notice the front tank doesnt have smoke launchers while the one in the middle does. Also notice the gun thermal sleeve



 

A non-T-62M variant in Afghanistan

 

T-62M in Afghanistan with slat armor, a hole is cut for the exhaust
 

 

T-62M in Afghanistan, this one has  slat armor protecting the rear.

 

 

T-62M with Soviet troops in Afghanistan. 

 

T-62M with slat armor and mine roller in Afghanistan

 

T-62M in Afghanistan. 4 large slat panels cover the back of the turret.

 

From observation, there are many variations of how slat armor is applied on the turret, some still have wide gaps between the bdd and slat armor, and some have

slat armor positioned very closely to the bdd armor, ensuring the slat armor covers the entire turret not protected by BDD. Either way, this means that theres no 

space for smoke launchers, meaning smoke launchers must be removed to accommodate the slat application.

 

 

Detailed Model



 

 

 

III. Suggested Stats and Features

Designations To Prevent Confusion for readers:

 

T-62 mod. 1972 : Upgraded from the 1961 model we have ingame

 

T-62M : Upgraded from the 1972 variant with improved BDD armor, Volna FCS, gun launched ATGM capability, 620 hp V-55U engine, TShSM-41U gunner's sight, new commander's sight, "Meteor-M1" stabiliser, BV-62 ballistic computer and 9K116-2 "Sheksna" (NATO: AT-10 Stabber) guided missile unit with 1K13-BOM sight, 10mm rubber side panels, thermal gun sleeve, 580mm track width

 

T-62M1 : Essentially identical to the T-62M but without ATGM capability

 

T-62M-1 :  (The one this topic is suggesting) : Essentially the same as the T-62M but with a V-46-5M engine, a derivative of the engine used by early model T-72s that generates 780 hp!

 

T-62M-1 SPECIFICATIONS

Weight: 39.7 metric tonnes

Engine: 780 horsepower V-46-5M (2,000 rpm)

Firepower: can fire atgms and access 80s era munitions

Protection: BDD armor adds an additional KE 120mm / CE 200-250mm protection to the front.

performance wise, everything else is the same as the one ingame

also the option to equip slat armor as an unlockable modification, this also replaces the standard 10mm thick rubber side track panels

 

 

Technical Information for the rest of the tank can be found in excerpts below from the book written by military historian Steven Zaloga

 

IV. Additional Information

All technical information on the T-62M can be found here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is BDD Armor?

Excerpts taken from ARMOR Magazine, the professional journal of the US Army Armor Branch, May-June Issue 2002, page 30-31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is BDD armor?

   The application of the BDD armor involved the addition of three external steel boxes; one large box on the glacis, and two smaller curved boxes on the turret (one on either side of the tank’s main gun). The glacis box was made of steel plates 30mm thick and covered most of the original glacis. The box was filled with solid polyurethane. Encased within the beer-colored polyurethane were six angled and evenly spaced 5mm thick steel plates. These internal steel plates were held in-place within the polyurethane by what appear to be structural brackets. When viewed in profile, the BDD armor provides an impressive multilayered array of alternating layers of steel and polyurethane. The BDD glacis box was a total of 150mm thick.

 

   The curved turret boxes, on the other hand, each had an outer layer of 60mm thick steel plates and include a larger number of the internal 5mm plates encased within the polyurethane. Additionally, these 5mm plates are apparently vertical (not angled like those used in the glacis box) and are configured in such a way to ensure an attacking projectile would be forced to penetrate several of the alternating layers before reaching the turret base armor. The complete application of BDD armor adds about 2 metric tons to the weight of the tank. BDD armor is classified as non-energetic reactive armor (NERA) since the reaction it produces (the defeat mechanism) is not caused by an explosive material, but by the impact of an attacking projectile on the polyurethane in each box. This reaction can have a huge impact on an attacking projectile or the molten “jet” from a shaped-charge warhead. When the projectile strikes and penetrates the outer layer of the BDD steel box, it sends an intense shock wave into the polyurethane, which compresses within the steel box. Since the compressed polyurethane (and the energy transferred to it from the projectile impact) has nowhere to go due to its confinement in the steel box, it is forced to move back into the path of the projectile. The effect is like compressing a powerful spring and suddenly releasing it towards the projectile.

 

    While the cause and effect of this reaction within the BDD box is well understood, the role played by the 5mm steel plates and the structural brackets holding them in place is not as clear-cut. While some sources report that the 5mm plates are in-fact “bulging plates” (designed to be set in motion by the reaction of the polyurethane to actually “attack” the projectile), a more likely explanation is that the 5mm plates and the structural brackets are intended to further confine the polyurethane in each BDD box. By increasing the surface area beyond that provided by the box itself, the additional confinement of the polyurethane (between and around the 5mm steel plates) equates to a larger reaction working against the attacking projectile.

 

   In recent years, NII Stali (Russia’s primary tank armor research and development organization), has become much more forthcoming with information regarding its armor developments. In a product pamphlet called “Suggestions on Modernization of MBTs and IFVs” distributed at a recent arms exhibition, NII Stali provided a few important details concerning BDD armor. In a section called Armor Protection Upgrading – Variant 1, BDD armor (described as “metal-polymer block”), is credited with adding 120mm of protection against APDS and 200-250mm of protection against HEAT or shapedcharge ammunition. In effect, the 60- degree frontal arc of a T-55 fitted with BDD armor was suddenly immune to tank-fired 105mm APDS and HEAT, as well as Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) ammunition.

 

V. References

'T-62 Main Battle Tank 1965–2005' page 20-28. Book by Steven Zaloga , military historian.

 

What is BDD armor? source : (ARMOR, May-June 2002 edition, page 30-31), Professional Journal of the US Army

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2002/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune2002web.pdf

 

V-46 engine from Uralvagonzavod

http://chtz-uraltrac.com/catalog/items/21.php

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by RefrigerRaider
added spoilers

[SAUBER_KH7 3,325]

Open for Discussion.

 

I added spoilers for the images to help those with a slow connection load your topic faster.

Edited November 1, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7

[RefrigerRaider 563]

thank you mod 

[WulfPack 1,693]

What APFSDS did you have in mind? The 3BM36 DU?

Edited November 1, 2017 by WulfPack

[BigC_81 511]

Plus one for me. More vehicles are needed badly in 8.3, I mean 9.0.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

1 hour ago, WulfPack said:

What APFSDS did you have in mind? The 3BM36 DU?

I am not very knowledgeable in the field of modern tank munitions, but its up to the devs to decide what round they add. Usually the stats for the post modern rounds does not mirror their real life counterparts in game for sake of balance.

54 minutes ago, BigC_81 said:

Plus one for me. More vehicles are needed badly in 8.3, I mean 9.0.

this tank would be close to equal to the T-64 we have in game.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

updated some infos

Edited November 2, 2017 by RefrigerRaider

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

7 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

Usually the stats for the post modern rounds does not mirror their real life counterparts in game for sake of balance.

 

This isn't WoT, you cant just change something for "balance". That is what the BR system is for, or at least was until they decided it's easier to change a tanks stats than change it's BR.... 

 

Anyway, I vote no: because I can easily name 20 ground vehicles made before 1953, FOR EACH NATION currently in game, that have yet to be added and wouldn't cause any problems. Gaijin didn't model ERA or "Composite" armor correctly, so they most likely wont model the BDD correctly either. And like Wulfpack said, what ammo would this use, something chronologically appropriate (1970s) or would it get time traveling ammo from the 80s? But if you want more info on the T-62, here you go: 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

Edited November 2, 2017 by xX_Lord_James_Xx

[RefrigerRaider 563]

true, but it is inevitable that Gaijin would add more Tier VI MBTs, currently, only USA have 2, all other nations with tanks have just 1, while japan has none. So when the time comes when another Tier VI soviet mbt is gonna be added (which it will), then this is the best contender. it mirrors the T-64 in performance, without being game breaking. This is my intention.

 

The addition of this tank will in no way affect the 20 vehicles you say before 1950s because this tank will be 9.0 and would not face them unless 8.0+

Edited November 2, 2017 by RefrigerRaider

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

7 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

true, but it is inevitable that Gaijin would add more Tier VI MBTs, currently, only USA have 2, all other nations with tanks have just 1, while japan has none. So when the time comes when another Tier VI soviet mbt is gonna be added (which it will), then this is the best contender. it mirrors the T-64 in performance, without being game breaking. This is my intention.

 

The addition of this tank will in no way affect the 20 vehicles you say before 1950s because this tank will be 9.0 and would not face them unless 8.0+

 

Yes, it would model the T-64 in performance, unfortunately we don't have the T-64 in game, we have the T-64A. The original T-64 had the same 115mm as on the T-62, and the armor, engine, and autoloader of the T-64A we see in game. 

 

I'm surprised you didn't challenge my claim about 20 ground vehicles per nation. I was hoping to prove you wrong, with pictures if necessary. 

[BigC_81 511]

 

16 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

this tank would be close to equal to the T-64 we have in game.

Exactly!  It would be a backup to the T64 and also if more vehicles are in this performance level and RB the MM wouldn't have to pull 8.3 and 8.7 inasmuch giving them a chance to have a good game every now and again. As it is now you can't put your 8.3 vehicles in your lineup unless you want to fight in 9.0 every match.  Just like in lower tiers where you have a lineup of similar performing vehicles all in the same BR. So when you lose one, your backup is not at such a disadvantage that you hurt the team instead of helping it.

 

More vehicles of close to the same performance all in the same tier is a benefit to everyone.  We all like variety even if it's only cosmetic more vehicles still helps the BR compression.

[Le_Mofoman@psn 1,707]

10 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

you cant just change something for "balance"

Redirect to: Post-Penetration damage.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

3 hours ago, BigC_81 said:

 

Exactly!  It would be a backup to the T64 and also if more vehicles are in this performance level and RB the MM wouldn't have to pull 8.3 and 8.7 inasmuch giving them a chance to have a good game every now and again. As it is now you can't put your 8.3 vehicles in your lineup unless you want to fight in 9.0 every match.  Just like in lower tiers where you have a lineup of similar performing vehicles all in the same BR. So when you lose one, your backup is not at such a disadvantage that you hurt the team instead of helping it.

 

More vehicles of close to the same performance all in the same tier is a benefit to everyone.  We all like variety even if it's only cosmetic more vehicles still helps the BR compression.

I agree, since Tier VI is lacking tanks. I always expect the tanks suggested to have complementary counterparts.

Below are some suggestions I personally suggested and by others. The M60a1 RISE Passive, for example, i coauthored back in january , is added to the game.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7

[BigC_81 511]

1 hour ago, RefrigerRaider said:

I agree, since Tier VI is lacking tanks. I always expect the tanks suggested to have complementary counterparts.

Below are some suggestions I personally suggested and by others. The M60a1 RISE Passive, for example, i coauthored back in january , is added to the game.

   Yes, to all of them. Really at this point you can't hurt the top tier any more.  It's a total mess at the moment because of the last batch of vehicle added to the game.  The truth is they were added way to soon with not enough to fill the tier.  This left all the other vehicle open as just targets.  The real current problem is the autoloader more than anything else, the insane reload speed compared to what it faces means you have little to no chance of winning a fight with one let alone two or three that you normally face. Let me explain that point. You hit an XYZ 70 or even the T64 you catch it on fire and even kill the gunner.  Oh well, still can turn to you and get off three shots before it even has to extinguish the fire. Meanwhile you have not even reloaded once. This means you either must kill it first shot or hit its gun which I have done a lot, only to turn it yellow and then the above happens.  Engine shots only mean you just made it even easier for it to turn at lighting speed and shot you for making it wait in one spot for more than a few seconds. 

 

 Add more compatible vehicles, or top tier is simply unplayable if you want to have fun. 

 

Heck just throw in the event tanks they already have them modeled and ready for deployment.  Why not, it can't hurt it now.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7

[RefrigerRaider 563]

the only thing i can think of for the auto loader is to make them destructible, while the autoloader becomes disabled, you are forced to reload by hand until you fix it. that

[BigC_81 511]

1 minute ago, RefrigerRaider said:

the only thing i can think of for the auto loader is to make them destructible, while the autoloader becomes disabled, you are forced to reload by hand until you fix it. that

Not a bad Idea at all.

[SAUBER_KH7 3,325]

5 minutes ago, RefrigerRaider said:

the only thing i can think of for the auto loader is to make them destructible, while the autoloader becomes disabled, you are forced to reload by hand until you fix it. that

I'm not sure if you realistically load the gun manually if the tank has an Auto-loader as it is mechanical, and the ammo is stored in a way where it is intended to be loaded automatically, not manually. I would support that idea if it was historically possible.

[BigC_81 511]

17 minutes ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

I'm not sure if you realistically load the gun manually if the tank has an Auto-loader as it is mechanical, and the ammo is stored in a way where it is intended to be loaded automatically, not manually. I would support that idea if it was historically possible.

Well instead of that, how about just treat it like the gun barrel or breech? It's damaged and now needs to be repaired. AKA repair time before it functions like every other part of the tank.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

1 hour ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

I'm not sure if you realistically load the gun manually if the tank has an Auto-loader as it is mechanical, and the ammo is stored in a way where it is intended to be loaded automatically, not manually. I would support that idea if it was historically possible.

 

Its possibe on the XYZ-70 (or any bustle mounted autoloader) and Russian tanks with the AZ autoloader (T-72 and T-90 derivatives), so long as you have ammo not in the loader. However, it’s extremely hard to do that with the L autoloader that the T-64 and T-80 use as the shells block access to other areas. You can see what I mean by looking through the T-72 and T-80 articles in the Tankograd site: 

14 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

 

If I remember correctly, there should be gifs showing the carousel loaders in action. On phone, so can’t directly link it to you (will do that when back to comp). 

 

4 hours ago, *Le_Mofoman said:

Redirect to: Post-Penetration damage.

 

‘Eye twitches’, yeah, I know.... I’m not happy about that either.... 

[RefrigerRaider 563]

Here it is

 

 

T-80 autoloader at work

Edited November 3, 2017 by RefrigerRaider

[Flavettes 1,101]

7 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Its possibe on the XYZ-70 (or any bustle mounted autoloader) and Russian tanks with the AZ autoloader (T-72 and T-90 derivatives), so long as you have ammo not in the loader. However, it’s extremely hard to do that with the L autoloader that the T-64 and T-80 use as the shells block access to other areas. You can see what I mean by looking through the T-72 and T-80 articles in the Tankograd site: 

 

If I remember correctly, there should be gifs showing the carousel loaders in action. On phone, so can’t directly link it to you (will do that when back to comp). 

 

Since when did the T-62 have an autoloader?

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

22 minutes ago, Flavettes said:

 

Since when did the T-62 have an autoloader?

 

I did say ".... look through the T-72 and T-80 articles in the Tankograd site".... no where in that sentence did I mention the T-62..... 

 

If you're having trouble finding the articles, here's a picture to help: 

Spoiler

 

[Flavettes 1,101]

I'm referring to this. Could you elaborate?

 

8 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

23 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html

 

If I remember correctly, there should be gifs showing the carousel loaders in action. On phone, so can’t directly link it to you (will do that when back to comp). 

 

 

[RefrigerRaider 563]

5 hours ago, Flavettes said:

 

Since when did the T-62 have an autoloader?

It never had one

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

14 hours ago, Flavettes said:

I'm referring to this. Could you elaborate?

 

 

 

 

I was directing you to the Tankograd site. Since I was on my phone, I couldn’t link the T-72 and T-80 articles, so I instead choose to link that article and hope anyone reading was smart enough to go look for the T-72 and T-80 articles in the website. I guess I was wrong....