Sure
Must be quite an old video, judging by how green and clear everything is. Still interesting.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
I would answer almost the same thing you answered, it saved me the trouble.
haha ha
Update:
The funny thing is the comments on the tweet asking to delete.
The AFU is really taking off their fighter jets to intercept the drones in an intense way.
This is the same "intercept" that I previously posted.
In normal atmospheric conditions the sound propagate in an arc upwars, means the ground detection of sound is possible only for visual distances if the object in the air.
For surface objects the audio distance is waaaay less than the visual distance.
It is due to the normal termperarue distribution, the air up there cooler ,means the sound propagating slower, so the emitted sound bending upwars.
Somsetime the ground air cooler than the higher , during this period distant sounds can be heard ,like if you live for few km from a highway then there are days when it possible to hear the cards for few hours, it is a great indiator during that time for the temperature distribution of the atmosphere in that area for that time period.
Next thing you know, the Ukranians will ask for Spitfires or Tempests to try to tip the missiles over with their wings.
There's a lot of fumbling in the dark about T-62s here.
T-62 entered service long before 1980. It's a further development of the T-55.
Soviets liked the idea of the T-62, which was a somewhat enlarged T-55 with a revolutionary new 115mm smoothbore gun. Similarity to T-55 significantly eased retraining and logistics.
However, it was only a match for the early M-60s, and would be outcompeted by later developments. T-64/72 was the longer-term solution for Soviet armoured forces.
Many Soviet client states didn't buy the T-62, because they didn't think that it offered enough of an advantage over the T-55 despite costing more. So it was mainly USSR and some countries like Cuba that fielded them. DPRK developed much of its tank force from T-62, didn't it?
T-62 was a solid and reliable tank, I think Israel even rebuilt some because they are useful and they work.
There was a significant modernization program for the T-62, forming the T-62M. Later models of T-62 had laser rangefinders, which would have been a useful addition during the Cold War.
Tanks like T-55 and T-62 are not what you want in fighting against MBT in Ukraine today, but there continues to be a need for a protected, mobile gun system. I mean, the U.S. is going to spend millions per-tank for a 105 mm light tank, so T-62 doesn't look so bad.
T-62 is not so oddball in the Russian army today. They are supplying allied T-62s in Syria. T-62 is a development of T-55, which Russia is also supplying in Syria. If you can maintain a T-55, you can maintain a T-62.
Reportedly, T-62s are relatively survivable. They don't combust as much as the non-upgraded autoloader tanks like T-72A or T-64. They can take hits from RPG-7. This gives them a valuable fire-support role.
T-62 entered service long before 1980. It's a further development of the T-55.
Soviets liked the idea of the T-62, which was a somewhat enlarged T-55 with a revolutionary new 115mm smoothbore gun. Similarity to T-55 significantly eased retraining and logistics.
However, it was only a match for the early M-60s, and would be outcompeted by later developments. T-64/72 was the longer-term solution for Soviet armoured forces.
Many Soviet client states didn't buy the T-62, because they didn't think that it offered enough of an advantage over the T-55 despite costing more. So it was mainly USSR and some countries like Cuba that fielded them. DPRK developed much of its tank force from T-62, didn't it?
T-62 was a solid and reliable tank, I think Israel even rebuilt some because they are useful and they work.
There was a significant modernization program for the T-62, forming the T-62M. Later models of T-62 had laser rangefinders, which would have been a useful addition during the Cold War.
Tanks like T-55 and T-62 are not what you want in fighting against MBT in Ukraine today, but there continues to be a need for a protected, mobile gun system. I mean, the U.S. is going to spend millions per-tank for a 105 mm light tank, so T-62 doesn't look so bad.
T-62 is not so oddball in the Russian army today. They are supplying allied T-62s in Syria. T-62 is a development of T-55, which Russia is also supplying in Syria. If you can maintain a T-55, you can maintain a T-62.
Reportedly, T-62s are relatively survivable. They don't combust as much as the non-upgraded autoloader tanks like T-72A or T-64. They can take hits from RPG-7. This gives them a valuable fire-support role.
Good post. The T-62 performs relatively well as an infantry tank in the modern era.
It was never that fast, but that's not a key requirement of accompanying infantry, or reducing fortifications.
The built-in case extractor means that it ejects the spent casings outside of the tank. This is actually significant in real-world operations. The fumes from the spent cartridge don't fill up the tank. So if you are just sitting there, firing dozens of shells, it's better to be in a T-62 than a T-64A.
[If this was an American tank, you'd be hearing all sorts of pean about the longevity of the T-62, how some have been through at least two upgrade cycles, how thermal sights and ERA give it "a new life," praise for its simplicity in battlefield operations and the generations who have fought in them, etc... Probably 20 articles on "The Drive" and so on.]
Last edited:
CBC News is granted access to NATO spy plane supporting Ukraine combat operations. The journalist concludes: "NATO does have involvement, really, in the Ukrainian conflict." Crew member expresses satisfaction "that we are making a difference against the enemy"
The New Yorker published a similar article a few days ago with regards the involvement of the US in the conflict. They pretty much admit they gave the coordinates of the Moskva to the Ukranians
Italy does send remanufactured M109s.
Grazie Italia !
Grazie Italia !