How to Fight: The T-62 Tank Capabilities and Countermeasures | Vintage US Army Video 

+Maxios Aimbé They are biased towards the Nation its aimed for. For example the Fatigue thing Same witht eh Soviet ones!!

Joshua Chita Well....as always a Gun is only good as long as the Soldier behind it knows whats hes doing!!

+Maxios AimbéThat is true. what I hate with today's documentary is the that sensational/emotional tone that narrators like to use.

adolfhilter Yeah clearly. I mean I tried to watch an f6f doc from the history channel and the thing was biased as fuck. WW2 is the worst as far as bias goes. Nearly everytime they go out and only dis the soviet because of the coldwar or say silly things like that allie planes were better than german ones which pisses me off. Man wikipedia is the most reliable and true source of info out there. (PS: edgy name uncle dolphy)

Maxios Aimbé I've watched a couple of Cold War docs where they say how shit migs are.

"Move forward until your dead comrades create a human roadblock to stop their Capitalist machines."

lol, yeah those would be funny, but there were none, the soviet rookie top brass probably was not that delusional to have something like that ever put together because they knew it wouldn't have happened, meaning the total defeat of the opposing tank.

CHUUMPASS so they wouldnt train or release information on the strengths and weaknesses of enemy tanks and how the enemy might use them?

This shows USA ware always and aggressor nation. They must be destroyed

Ghost Erik It’s the same reason why sports teams watch footage of the opposing team’s previous games. It’s meant as a means of study. Be it sports or war, you ALWAYS want to know the capabilities of who you face. It could even be off-season. If confrontation is suspected it’s better to be prepared than not. Just because any given military has these kinds of videos doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going on the attack; correlation isn’t causation. Try harder with calling out the US, child.

Hahaha

I guess it was a part of the big operation to make everything in the Soviet Army seem happy, so the soldiers won't be depressed going into a nuclear holocaust.

@@buckplug2423 what the fuck are you talking about

@@kazuhiramiller7491 they are joking that most Soviet tanks main guns cannot depress past a certain angle ...

@@wrath231 omg i know the joke im replying to the tagged guys comment lol

War is cute

Well, I was going to stop watching 5 minutes in. But if there's freaking _stop motion...._

Yeah at first I was like 'what the hell?', but then I settled into a deep appreciation for mid-1970's era Big Green Machine modelers and puppeteers in sateen uniforms arranging cotton ball smoke effects for some damn Lt. Colonel, too funny...

@@BeingFireRetardant honestly best posting ever

I did it. And I got fired.

@@grazielecarvalho4792 you will forever be known as the badass mysterious cold war dude who knew how to destroy soviet tanks

@@airsoftfreak11 I am a girl. Graziele female Brazilian name. 😊

Graziele Carvalho sounds exotic !! That’s hot

@@Ur.MomfAg 😊😊😊😊

I'm here because of a video on Twitter of the Russian Nazis using T-62 in Ukraine 😁

@@tbyte007 I think you got both statements mixed up

@@dog-qs7tw No I dont brain dead bot 😁

@@dog-qs7tw nah he got it pretty right. Wth you talkin about?

@@RazorsharpLT im telling ya every russian would not become a nazi even if hey had a box cutter against their ballsack and offered a million bucks

not hard to fight it in XM-1. lol

The 225677th Fragment of the Man-Emperor of Mankind i agree

Prepared you to watch videos that is all it has done.

Get Nerfed :D All hail CCCP

@@TheKaMeLRo avg. XM-1 player iq: 0 avg. T-62 player iq: 420^69!

Bruh, you forgot the existence of the absolute air superiority of the NATO

@@chrisblack6258 same thing in the air, saturation attack on nato air elements via guns missles MRCA's and fighter aircraft futhermore NATO were not the only ones with an electronic warfare cabability....

@@chrisblack6258 nato boy

​@@AyebeeMk2 Not anymore lol

@@viniciusdomenighi6439 Why do you think nato is beter? 'Three day operation'

Crazy isn't it ?

@@alikareem3393 nigga why do u look like a paintbrush

YES. LITTERLY

@@asiftalpur3758 ......Ninga...... because I am no a Nigga 😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐

@@alikareem3393 but u look like a paintbrush bro

Nice logical theory...but in practice, first you have to come close to the factory,and that's where your theory becomes a lucid dream only.

EnimapoDopaminE I mean... we do have Stealth bombers ya know.

@@pacificstatesofamerica I mean this video is like +40-50 years old

@@pacificstatesofamerica Yes, you have them now, but you didn't have them in that period when those tanks were manufactured. One more thing, we are talking about USA and Soviet/Russia as opposing sides, and every mistake any of them would make, even the slightest one, would lead toward start of WW3. It's still a lucid dream in my opinion,and I truly hope that none of both sides have a dream like that at all.

John F. Kennedy Ah understood. I thought it was a general statement about the US vs. Russia. In that case I guess they just nuke the whole plant, I can’t imagine the Cold War going hot without getting nukes involved, kinda like asking how the Soviets would get rid of Lockheed or Boeing plants without stealth bombers or nukes.

apfsds deathstar

ye, T-64 just dont hit the same

Was not much better. Most of kills in Arab Israeli conflict for example, wer attributed to T-55 still. T-62 scored many Chieftains in other hand.

@@user-bn5df6hl1d Я служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977гг.

​@@user-vz8xf9bi8b Это очень круто. На какой должности ты был в танке? У меня был профессор, который служил в Красной Армии и был водителем Т-72, ​​не зная модели. Честно говоря, фантастические танки, Т-64/Т-80 были отличной серией. извини плохой переводчик

For propaganda reasons

protect the family from...what?

@@leozisser5587 Californians with Tanks

A BMP would also be good. But honestly I don't like the idea of sitting atop my ammo (assuming being a Russian Tanker/BMP Gunner would be scary).

Protect from Godzilla

Not too useful. It’s pretty obsolete being basically an enlarged T-54/55 with an alright gun. Russia is still using them for some reason though.

+SkullKing11841 You don't know the north german terrain really well :-P

RoninTF2011 Oh damn, it was a typo when I said "Northern", I meant just European Plain. I'll edit it. What do you mean exactly? There can still be hills on a plain.

+SkullKing11841 Just saying that terrain in central europe (germany for that matter, as there would have been a, or even the, main frontline) has really plenty of hills and slopes. A good gun depression helps a lot when trying to maintain a hull down position and still be able to engage. If you tanks can't bring its gun down very far...you have to expose yourself more. My reference to north germany in that regard(sry, didn't make that clear)was because that, and "Fulda gap" where the 2 main routes where a quick deployment of armour would have been an option.

RoninTF2011 I know, the Soviet requirement was that the tanks be low because most of the terrain they would be fighting on is mostly flat and has small rises in the ground so being low makes you a smaller target and opens cover up to you were a taller tank would have it's turret exposed, there is always a trade off.

No one fights a modern war with Armor on a flat open plain... They'd be wiped out easily.

Hm, i thought they were moved with magnets.

Alica Ljungberg cause that's one sexy T-62 )))))))

Welcome to 1977!

To make the G.I.s not fall asleep during the lecture

And you have a lot of experience with 70's porn music, HOW? 🤔🙄

Lol just commented about that. Then saw this comment

my grandpa was a T-54B driver. It was watertight as well, they crossed rivers several times underwater during his draft service

@u bakaThe earlier ones could, but later models couldn't.

Older tanks were still very capable machines as engineers and armor designers around the world did their jobs exceedingly well. We just have much more powerful and capable machines these days due to the frankly insane rate at which tank technology advanced during the Cold War, doesn't make the old tanks useless even if they're obsolete just not effective against modern armor and anti-armor weapons. Essentially if you're a low tech country that needs armor support you'll take whatever you can get and most functional tanks on the market will serve their purpose regardless if they're obsolete. As a wise man once said "a bad tank is better than no tank at all". In a modern context if properly modernized the T-62 would be a capable killer of older tanks (like variants of itself or Chieftains, M60s, Leopard 1s, and older tanks) and more lightly armored vehicles out to serious ranges, possibly greater than 1.5km (which while unimpressive for modern standards is still very useful if you don't have better vehicles). Against modern armor it's unfortunately hopeless from a frontal aspect as modern armor is designed to withstand much more potent threats than the 115mm could ever hope to be and their guns will tear the T-62 apart. Modern NATO tanks being armored to stop the common Russian 125mm and the modern Russian tanks being armored to resist the common NATO 120mm. It can be argued how well these tanks do so as we have little information on modern Russian armor performance against NATO 120mm ammunition save for old Iraqi T-72s which were demolished with ease at ranges out to 2.5km on average and even out to 4.5km at most during the Gulf War. The Abrams and Challenger 2 also proved to be immune to older 125mm ammunition at short range during the Gulf War but ammunition has advanced both severely and rapidly since then on both sides.

They had to be gas tight.

Old tanks are very impressive, even still the M103 still delivers the most kinetic energy to its target than any other tank. This is of course because tanks do not fire giant projectiles now but still cool.

Oh c'mon they are really hard to confuse with each other, and in second case you just bring more firepower.

LargenirGK no, t-64 is much better armoured

Bt5 is entering the chat

T 64 was operated by U.S backed Neo Nazis that attempted to advance into Russian controlled territory, and they were stopped at its tracks

@@Chinunit22 I'm sorry what....

6:37 that's one damn funky tank crew!

Yup in Ukraine.

🙂

Lunchbox and plasticine animation.

Yep, like in World of Tanks.

tank size rarely matter unless you're in close promity where an inch will make a difference of hitting or grazing. but in longer range skirmishes, which is the more probable scenario, that that extra few inches in turret size will not matter at all because if the enemy misses you, it's going to be by a few hundred feets. and if he hits you, it's not because of your tank's smaller size. not only that, turret height will not matter because shots will be coming towards you at an angle due to trajectory, so it will hit your tank whether you have a short or tall turret.

Except all of those advantages are completely erased by the lack of gun depression. The T-62 and all follow on Soviet MBTs actually have to expose a far greater portion of the tank than any of its western counterparts. This means that an attacking T-62 (or any other Soviet MBT) will be exposed for a far greater period of time before it can get its gun on target.

Israelis destroyed so many T-62 becuse these machines exposed more what stand on the top of the hill than Centurion, M-48 and M-60 s

It's a matter of doctrine and geography Russia will fight on the open European plains if they ever deploy tanks, while america has to worry about defending both it's European and Asian allies thus needs a more versatile tank that can fight in the hills of Korea, the forests of SEA and the plains of Europe, neither design is stupid or bad just made for different situations. The Russian T series tanks will perform much better in open fields while the american tanks can be effective in more types of terrain

So now that we know that the entire Russian military would have been cut apart by even the forces we already had in not Europe but just the border with the USSR at the time how do you feel? I mean to be fair who would have thought that it wasn't optimism but the pure cold knowledge that they knew the Soviet forces didn't really stand a sliver of a chance against the NATO alliance, I mean don't get me wrong I'm not judging you it's just that I'm surprised it took until the war in Ukraine for us all to realize just how shit Russian equipment is, seriously tip of the spear T-80BVMs, T-72B3s and T-90s are getting absolutely shat on by not only modern ATGMs but even Legacy M72 LAWS and RPG-7s not to mention the countless vehicles that have been burned to a crisp by nothing more than Molotov cocktails. Can you imagine if the Russians had actually tried to break through the prepared defenses of the NATO alliance and had nothing better than T-62s!? Like Jesus the poor bastards would have gotten shattered like glass as soon as the TOW missiles started flying, not to mention the sheer absurdity of trying to supply the fuel and food necessary to keep over 10,000 tanks running while relaying on the entirely ineffective Soviet and Russian supply lines, on God bro! It would have been the definition of a one sided stomping by NATO even worse than the Gulf war, like legit bro it would have been such a one-sided fight it would have made saddam's generals look like fucking geniuses for lasting as long as they did.

​@@anarchyandempires5452 Modern day Russia is not USSR, ( and when looking at USSR, it also depends on which era) In the timeframe when USSR did not have anything better than the T62. Nato would not have had Tows yet . Thier best tanks would of been the likes of the M60 for the US, leopard 1 for Germany, and the Uk with thier Centurions. ( and maybe some Chieftains thrown in for the UK if we are talking late 60s, when they were just entering service) Again its this sort of hubris that had nazi germany loose against USSR. thought they would be inept ill supplied pushovers. Turned out once upon a time Quantity was still abel to best quality.

Optimism was at its peak? Its the army. See what strategies Germany had in 1918 or 1944. Optimism goes beyond being retarded.

some su-30 same lol

Same

Merry X-Mas

Its as unique as a forest with trees.

That kinda scared me lol

Gert Madsen The guns on both tanks can cut through each others armor like a hot knife through butter. I'd hate to have to sit in either tank.

Plank Hill true. It must be so horrible inside a tank that is being penetrated with armourpircing wepons.

True - I just like the T-62 thats all.

Yes but they are highly manneurable, hard to break down, have good guns and are easier to hide. When western tank are comperred to soviet, there are often comparred to tanks that are 20 or more years older. If you would be fair - you should compare the T-62 with the M-48 and not the M-60.

+happylatvian i agree with your statement

Tawakalna The M60 patton its only an Upgrade of M26 pershing of WW2

Ullrich Hoffmann Uhm no, I think you mean the M46. Then the M47 succeeded that and the M48 succeeded the M47. Then the M60 came next.

by that logic the T-62 is just an "upgrade" of the T-44, useless statement by Ulrich Hoffman

@@muasibasl4796 lol the Challenger is just and "upgraded" mk 4 tank.

@@ullrichhoffmann882 That is similar to saying that the T62 is only an upgrade of the T44

Centurion not the celinterion

@Carnivorus The T-62 can defend but honestly in the area like the middle east where it may be hilly more often than between Germany to Russia, it would kind of fail since the M60 and Centurion had great gun depression so those two tanks could easily poke over and only show the strong-ish turrets and easily shoot down, or how the T-62 is more limited in the spots they defend. Though the only reason why the T-62 may be good in attack is just wave tactics, and of course you choose where you attack. Russian's were heavily influenced by WWII and adopted a lot of weapons to match that doctrine. T-62 was relatively cheaper than the other tanks. Crew comfort was a less of a priority. All in all the T-62 is capable but is designed for cheaper use. It can attack and defend and really depends on the commanders. Egypt however during this period, I never studied them, but as most middle eastern armies, commanders are not the best always and they tend to rely on more basic tactics. Though some do break that idea, I am talking majority.

It has crappy gun depression. But it has stabilization and fires very flat trajectory apfsds.

@@box8524 Arab commanders are not used to think for themselves. Initiative is not encouraged. It's all about hierarchy. Israelis on the other way are well organised. And pretty determined.

@@Panzer-Geomancer That is what I was saying, there will always be a select few good ones but it seems the majority base it on simple tactics without much care.

Its got to run a fine line of giving the soldiers real information, but still being positive

While both where in production they where far from fully replaced in all units.

There's a separate film for the T-64 and T-72. It's on youtube but quality is low.

Yeah, a towed gun is nearly as effective as a tank from a defensive position. And is much cheaper in every regard.

tanks are better for delay and retreat style defenses

@@Graymenn not entirely true. As I mentioned; towed guns are much cheaper. Tanks are only useful where your retreat would be dynamic, but retreat in a tank is slower than advance in a tank. So you expose yourself by retreating, and this is before we factor in the enormous issues with facing artillery, and other combined arms. Tanks in defence were used to advance. To relieve pressure on the line.

The WWII videos describing a German infantry squad assault is pretty good too.

@@buckplug2423 the one of the mg 42 is hilarious. "Dont worry it is very inaccurate"...

@@lordtachanka6489 mmm, that statement, but the rest isn't . The Russians treated the Germans as fools and sustained 3 times the casualties. :)

@@lordtachanka6489 sometimes you've got to give your troops some incentive to advance even if it is a lie.

@@DerDop from '42 to '45 the Soviets caused more casualties than they sustained. The Germans WERE fools for attacking them, because it was suicidal. That's the main reason the Soviets lost so many troops in the first few weeks. They probably thought it was just some big joke.

Nope never mind. ..I just watched the last part.....

same here -_-

remember, this was shown to US soldiers. If they said "this tank will fuck your shit goodbye" no one would even try to fight it... lel.

Dymitry the gamer Dix out!

wow I see that you are a wot player too. Quicky Baby

Skipped step 1 because of a step 4,step 3 exactly,and I'm on a step 2 obviously (^.^)

The video says T-62 can only fire 4 rounds a minute and cannot move the turret while reloading, the T62-A has only sight upgrades over the former. Now compare this information with what Russian tanks are in WoT.

There's probably already one, but heavily classified for sure

DEADPOOL FR no I don’t think there is but I’m sure there is a video oh how to destroy m1a2 Abrams

M1A2 for sure tho, T14 might not have been studied enough you're right

Put it in a parade, that seemed to take it out

Drop a JDAM on the garage it is being stored in between parades. The T-14 will never see combat much less be fielded outside parade units.

+Supes Me I would be surprised if they were as unbiased. But then again when the T62 started rolling out of the factory they were superior to the M60 so who knows? (Even tho the advantage was fairly slim)

+Joshua Chita most were tough by classroom settings indeed, usually by a officer or political commissar. however some films were made, but they are very rare indeed

They would've been stupid to show propaganda, these videos are not made to strenghten your nationalist feelings but to provide valuable information about the enemy's combat capabilities

Like that: this is enemy tank if you dont hit you go gulag. The end

@Your Muslim Brother you have a different opinion? I've seen some evidence to back up every single answer presented

This comment is so very relevant now, esp. with Russia talking about moving stored T-62s into action!

@@RugbyGuide Unfortunately putin is a coward and prefers to send his minions to death from his cozy bunker.

Chechens didn't went into USSR army. they were part of USSR themselves and were conscripted into it. and most importantly were one of the most feared troops in the Soviet Afghan war.

Ukrainians destroyed close to 80 T72s and T90s when Russians tried to encircle and capture Kiev in just 3 days back in late February but got obliterated with ATGM Stugnas , Artillery and RPGs instead

@@Nikowalker007 Yes, they never learn. Glory to Ukraine!

High rate of fire? The thing could fire a maximum of 4 rounds a minute.

+abacs21 op plays too much world of tanks that's why he thinks it has a high rate of fire

Richard Turner Because the one in Wot is the T-62A with a 100mm gun, the 115mm U-5TS had significantly worse RoF

abacs21 the U8TS, which was the 100mm gun was not that fast firing either. Fuck that game too its so unrealistic

Jimmy De'Souza Offical documents.

it is indeed. though Steel Armor: Blaze of War serves these tanks (t62 and M60a1) true justice, a real sim with fully modeled interiors

+K “Kev2go” Cz never played steel armor, thanks for the recommendation I will definitely check it out!

lol just shoot the front armor and boom the tank explode just like the T54 xD

I actually posted a link to this video on War Thunder's Facebook page in reply to their post announcing the launch of v1.61. Hopefully that will generate more attention to it and prove useful to players encountering this tank in the game.

Chris Teet it may but i dont think it wont. Gajin doesnt simulate the exact chatercists of the T62. IE the gunner can track targets through his sight during reload, gun doesnt elevate, and the turret is movable during reload. so it doesnt have any of the flaws a real t62 would have save for a longer reload rate. . Now i dont think its in any way OP, but because of this its just better in game that it was IRL or how its represented in a Sim like Steel Armor blaze of war, therefore a m60 tanker would be able to exploit these, which he can in WT due to how the T62 was implemented. even from an aesthetics perspective, you dont see the T62s back turret door open and eject spent cases, which is a bit disappointing.

Haha it's very distracting

The "why to wear a condemn" propaganda video is next. They were just warming the guys up with the explosions first. 1977 was a fun year.

Ukrainians killed so many T-80s and T-72s the T-62 is coming back online.

Tako je,u pravu si,ali znas koliko su ameri iskompleksirani...njihovo je sve vrh top,i bolje od neprijateljskog. Smesni su sa takvom pricom generalno,ali svrha te price je donekle i dizanje morala sopstvenoj vojsci,ali se isti vrlo brzo pri prvom susretu sa ovim i ovakvim protivnikom rasprsi. Dizanje morala lazima, i u ofanzivnoj ulozi,protiv istine, i iskrene patriotske defanzive sa druge strane...nece da bude tako lako kao u ovim trenaznim snimcima. Svako dobro Dragane.

Can u post the link to that vid?

@@juanzulu1318 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sZ6QNWo6M0g.html

M60 has weak side armor, abrams only weak spot is directly behind it

Adam Mendoza Isn't that supposed to be all tank weaknesses?

M1s get knocked out from all directions with modern anti-tank handhelds (Iraq, Yemen). Just not when the US use them, as they have superior tactics,infrantry shielding them and CAS.

+Andal8811 The M1s you're referring to are M1A1SE1-2 tanks. They're the Saudi export versions, which have the same equipment as the American M1A2 but without the Chobham armor the American tanks have applied. It has a steel + Depleted Uranium mix armor. Doesn't mean the American version is invincible, tho.

Still any tank is worthless without proper tactics and secured flanks. A child can blow it up if it gets close enough.

Gun has no depression? means gun is always happy!