Score + - 2 Report post.
Posted on 2018-12-14 01:13:19 by Anonymous
Remove | Add note | Keep | Edit | Note history | Tag History | Previous | Next
2 comments (0 hidden)
Anonymous
Posted on 2021-04-29 18:35:34 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
According to a Soviet study of a captured Israeli M60A1, the median range error from 500 meters to 2,000 meters is only 1%. At 2,000 meters, the error margin is 1.25%, from 2,000 meters to 3,000 meters, the margin is only 2%, and at ranges above 3,000 meters, it is only 3%. I'm sure that that made a difference at very long ranges, but you're probably better off using HEAT or HEP than APDS at those ranges.
Since a T-62 gunner can rely on battle sight gunnery instead of needing a range measurement first, he is able to shoot first and the T-62 will most likely win a tank duel. Even if the commander decides to use his stadia range finder before giving the order to fire, he will be faster than his M60A1 counterpart. According to an Israeli evaluation, it takes a mean time of 3.3 seconds to make a range measurement with a stadia rangefinder whereas it takes 5.7 seconds to do so with a "Patton" rangefinder.
The T-62 gains an even greater advantage in a meeting engagement where both sides are fighting while moving. The T-62's faster reaction time and quicker APFSDS makes it easier to hit moving targets (the M60A1 has no automatic leading system either) that only appears fleetingly as it moves from cover to cover. The T-62 also gets a good stabilizer from the outset so there is no need to stop to fire accurately, but if the commander decides it's better to fire from a short halt, the reaction time will still be faster than an M60A1 because of that stabilizer.
Also keep in mind that the maximum combat distance at the Fulda Gap was just 800 meters and the combat distance in Central and Western Europe would not exceed 1,500 meters in 90% of cases according to independent American, German and Polish studies. The advantage that the M60A1 had at distances beyond 1,800 meters would not have been useful in a European war.
I won't pretend that the T-62 was a perfect tank, but it was pretty good for its time. Definitely a lot better than people nowadays give it credit for.
TL;DR: the T-62 is basically superior at ranges where 115mm APFSDS retains nearly flat trajectory, which massively simplifies targeting compared to hitherto used APDS and the like. At longer ranges 2+ km the M60 FCS provides an edge.
sources: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html
Reluctant_Uploader69
Posted on 2021-05-08 00:59:55 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
And THIS is a repost of my post from old 8ch /leftypol/'s military tech thread, funny how this got reposted
Posted on 2018-12-14 01:13:19 by Anonymous
Remove | Add note | Keep | Edit | Note history | Tag History | Previous | Next
2 comments (0 hidden)
Anonymous
Posted on 2021-04-29 18:35:34 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
According to a Soviet study of a captured Israeli M60A1, the median range error from 500 meters to 2,000 meters is only 1%. At 2,000 meters, the error margin is 1.25%, from 2,000 meters to 3,000 meters, the margin is only 2%, and at ranges above 3,000 meters, it is only 3%. I'm sure that that made a difference at very long ranges, but you're probably better off using HEAT or HEP than APDS at those ranges.
Since a T-62 gunner can rely on battle sight gunnery instead of needing a range measurement first, he is able to shoot first and the T-62 will most likely win a tank duel. Even if the commander decides to use his stadia range finder before giving the order to fire, he will be faster than his M60A1 counterpart. According to an Israeli evaluation, it takes a mean time of 3.3 seconds to make a range measurement with a stadia rangefinder whereas it takes 5.7 seconds to do so with a "Patton" rangefinder.
The T-62 gains an even greater advantage in a meeting engagement where both sides are fighting while moving. The T-62's faster reaction time and quicker APFSDS makes it easier to hit moving targets (the M60A1 has no automatic leading system either) that only appears fleetingly as it moves from cover to cover. The T-62 also gets a good stabilizer from the outset so there is no need to stop to fire accurately, but if the commander decides it's better to fire from a short halt, the reaction time will still be faster than an M60A1 because of that stabilizer.
Also keep in mind that the maximum combat distance at the Fulda Gap was just 800 meters and the combat distance in Central and Western Europe would not exceed 1,500 meters in 90% of cases according to independent American, German and Polish studies. The advantage that the M60A1 had at distances beyond 1,800 meters would not have been useful in a European war.
I won't pretend that the T-62 was a perfect tank, but it was pretty good for its time. Definitely a lot better than people nowadays give it credit for.
TL;DR: the T-62 is basically superior at ranges where 115mm APFSDS retains nearly flat trajectory, which massively simplifies targeting compared to hitherto used APDS and the like. At longer ranges 2+ km the M60 FCS provides an edge.
sources: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html
Reluctant_Uploader69
Posted on 2021-05-08 00:59:55 Score: 0 (vote Up/Down) (Report as spam)
And THIS is a repost of my post from old 8ch /leftypol/'s military tech thread, funny how this got reposted
1