My full agreement. Why is the tank there? The 8.7 lineup is already so advanced with the T 55 AM and T55 AMD that it really doesn’t need another tank this powerful.
8.7 is the lineup that serves the cliché of Russian bias like no other.
And before anyone complains. I use the lineup myself and can’t believe that the devs actually don’t touch it.
Apparently you don’t touch the T-62 either
I wonder why
Because there is no reason for it. The T 55s are already so powerful, why should you even grind a new tank on the BR?
Honestly, I’ve been wondering this for a while as well. In my opinion it should be the same BR.
Because when you compare them analytically, the differences are so damn minute. So I’ve decided to observe both vehicles in-depth because of this post. Here’s a run down on my findings. (Sectioned off for easy reading!)
APFSDS
The only thing that really has over the T-55A is the gun, which fires it’s kinetic shells at 1615 m/s compared to the T-55A that fires it’s APFSDS at 1430 m/s. This is an increase of 14% in favour of the T-62. The penetration of the 3BM4 is only 4% to 5% better than that of the 3BM25 available on the T-55. Both shells penetrate over 330m of armor.It should be noted however, that the T-62 has access to the 3BM4 round which (theoretically) could have a niche use case of penetrating highly angled armor at range, which should be kept in mind.
A thing to note is though, that the the spall on the T-62 is greater than that of the T-55.
In general, this is the main advantage lies in the gun velocity for kinetic rounds, and penetration + post penetration damage, thanks to the caliber.
HEAT
As for HEAT, the increase in penetration is slightly better at ~12% increase in penetrative power over all for 3BK4. But it in fact the 3BK5 has a slower velocity, going at 950 m/s compared to the 3BK17M’s 1085 m/s… But I guess there’s the advantage that the 3BK4 can over-pressure up to 23mm which is in fact greater than the OF-412 HE on the T-55A; that has 19mm of over-pressure pen.Post pen damage of the HEAT can also be expected to be greater on the 3BK4 thanks to the increased explosive mass.
The HEAT on the T-62 is naturally much more potent, but loses it’s advantage in velocity for this trade off. Which is… Odd. As it feels the velocity is the main point of the 115 mm gun.
HE
For comparing the HE shells? OF-412 has 19mm of pen as discussed before, with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. 3OF11 has chemical pen of 31mm with a muzzle velocity of 905 m/s. This increase in chemical penetration is around a 49% increase in power. It actually means that the T-62’s shell is capable of over-pressuring the Leopard 1’s armor hull roof plate, something the T-55A cannot do.
Outside of that, the T-55A obviously gets APHE along with a smoke shell that is very good utility. The APHE is very good for side shots.
The overall gun handling (slew and turret traverse) are better on the T-62 – along with the (overall) higher muzzle velocity that makes the shells easier to hit at a distance. The aced reloads are 7.5 sec for T-55A and 8.0 sec for T-62.
The T-62 can depress it’s gun 6° compared to the 5° on the T-55, but the T-55 can elevate it’s gun to 18° compared to the 16° on the T-62. This is a very minor difference, but I would argue that the T-62 has it better as that 1 extra degree of gun depression can sometimes help.
For ammo counts? The ready rack on the T-55 caries 18 rounds of ammo, compared to the 16 on the T-62.
Gun Accuracy
And for some final research I did based on datamined values that I got from the WT Datamine Github it actually appears that the T-62 is slightly less accurate than the T-55A.The T-62’s gun has a dispersion cone of 1.55° compared to the T-55A’s weapon which has a dispersion cone of 1.60°. In practice, this will not realistically start affecting gun accuracy until a engagement distance of 1500 meters is reached. Russian guns of this age at longer ranges to begin with can become very inaccurate, having up to ±50m of dispersion at ranges above 1500 meters.
The optics on the two vehicles in-game are the same. Having 3.5x to 7.0x magnification with 21° to 11° of FOV. Both have access to night-vision and a IR spotlight. I compared the IR optics in-game:
T-62’s night optics in-game
T-62’s night optics in-game, with IR spotlight
T-55A’s night optics in-game
T-55A’s night optics in-game, with IR spotlight
As you can tell, they are quite literally the same. I expected the T-55’s optics to have longer range as this is actually the case in real life but they both seem to illuminate targets at around the same rate.
Historically speaking, having done some quick research online right now and it seems the advantage should go to the T-62 – as it has access to better night vision optics for the driver and commander, and from what I understand the IR technology should be marginally better?
But it in-fact loses in range to the T-55A’s TPN-1-22-11 which has an effective range of 1000 meters compared to the T-62’s 800 meters from the TPN-1-41-11 but I feel that the overall image quality in the T-62 might have been marginally better historically speaking.
So in-fact, the T-55A should be modeled to have better range on it’s IR spotlight from what I understand. But it of course does not.
In regards to the survivability of the vehicles, I would honestly say the prize goes to the T-55A. The T-55 surprisingly, based on my own quick research in the frontal profile the T-55A has more armor.
Both vehicles have 4 crew members, with the gunner, commander and driver all positioned in a straight line that can result in a one shot if the driver side UFP is hit and penetrated. Fuel tanks on both vehicles are positioned in the same spots, with the ready rack being positioned in the fuel tank next to the driver.
The following protection analysis were done with the following vehicles:
(7.7) T32E1: T44 Shot fired at 500 meters, from the front
T-55A
T-62
It’s clear that in regards to the turret cheeks, the T-62 has more green present than the T-55A. The horizontal green line around the turret ring is also a very big weak spot, making penetrations much more consistent – the T-55A does not have this sort of weakspot.
(7.7) Caernarvon: Shot Mk. 3 fired at 500 meters, from the front
T-55A
T-62
Again, the green is much more prominent horizontally on the T-62. The T-55’s cheeks are much harder to penetrate consistently when compared to the T-62. The turret roof on the T-62 does seem to be stronger against these munitions, but it should be noted that the T-55’s roof is practically impossible to hit either. The angles which you can hit do result in a non-pen…
One thing that the T-62 definitely has over the T-55 is the cupolas. They are much smaller on the T-62 than the T-55 and stronger too.
I guess in terms of frontal protection, the T-55A has overall better protection. I would argue the turret cheeks on the T-55 have around (roughly) a 12-20 percent increase in protection compared to the T-55. The T-62’s turret roof and cupolas however, do mean that hypothetically speaking – it could enjoy a hull down position much more consistently than a T-55 thanks to it’s gun depression.
Armor on the side of the turret is maybe around 2-4 percent stronger on the T-55, but it’s still in the 150mm to 180mm region for both vehicles. It just that the T-55 has around 10mm more at most angles. Turret rear is around the same story for the T-55, slightly stronger.
Hull armor on both vehicles is practically identical. Both have a 100mm plate, it’s just the the angle the T-62’s plate is placed at an angle of 60° compared to the T-55’s 59°
In general, the T-55 is the better protected tank frontally. HOWEVER, It should be noted that the cupolas on the T-55A are a massive weakspot, and are practically APHE magnets, the T-62 does not have this disadvantage. The T-55A has access to a HMG, which could be considered bit of a trade for having such large and weak cupolas.
Both tanks will suffer against HEAT and NATO 105mm shells in general.
However, the T-62 has a slightly lower profile (no machine gun, smaller cupolas) along with better gun depression + the stronger roof and better rounds; meaning that it might perform better in a hull-down sniping engagement at range compared to the T-55.
In terms of mobility, both vehicles use the same engine and transmission. The ChTZ V-55V, with a transmission that permits the vehicles 50 km/h forward and 7.5 km/h in reverse. The issue arises from the fact that the T-62 is around a ton heavier.
This means that the T-55 has a power-to-weight ratio of 16.1 hp/ton. Compared to the T-62’s 15.7 hp/ton. Naturally, this minute difference in weight has a small effect on acceleration, especially in rough terrain, meaning that the T-55 has a slight ~2% advantage in it’s overall mobility… Which is why, if you just “think about it” the T-62 may feel slower compared to the T-55A.
To summarize my points, based on the quick research I’ve done; I would argue that the T-55A is better over all compared to the T-62 on the following grounds.
Advantages of the T-55A
- The tiny difference in mobility, around a ~2% increase in horsepower per ton in engine performance. Which will be noticed in acceleration.
- A rather noticeable ~20% increase in protection regarding the turret all round.
- The better reload, and increased ammo count in the ready rack, 2 more shells for the T-55A. A reload that can be 5 seconds faster than the T-62.
- Access to more versatile ammunition, such as APHE and smoke shells. Giving the vehicle increased versatility.
- Marginally better accuracy/dispersion. The T-55A has a dispersion cone of 1.55°, compared to the T-62’s 1.60°.
In general, I believe that the T-55A is better for the average War Thunder match. Having many quality of life features, such as the HMG, smoke shells and APHE. But I would note that the T-62 most is the better option for ranged engagements in hilly terrain – it’s intended as a sniper tank.
Quirks of the T-62
- The marginally slower acceleration isn’t an issue at range. They still boast the same speed, and transmission.
- Penetrative power and post-pen damage of it’s shells is greater than that of the T-55A. (~4% better APFSDS penetration)
- The armor while weaker than that of the T-55A, is still pretty strong.
- Gun handling is overall better than that of the T-55A, though very minute differences.
- Greater muzzle velocity (~14% greater) makes the shells very easy to hit at a distance.
- Increased gun depression works in it’s favour in hilly terrain, this coupled with a smaller profile and turret roof make the T-62; in theory the better option for this sort of hill combat at range.
In conclusion? These tanks should the same BR. They trade certain aspects for others, but practically speaking are very similar to other. They both have very similar armor profiles and performance. But what do you all think?
Sometimes you realize that English is not my native language. I only now understand why you asked.
I didn’t make myself clear.
The T 55 AMD and T55 AM are set at BR 8.7 and if you ask me, they are significantly too low.
The T62 is somewhat inferior to the T55 AMs on paper and also (in my observation as a German opponent) on the battlefield.
The T62 is therefore exactly right on the BR 8.7. One can happily argue that the T55A also belongs on the BR 8.7, but not the other way around.
So where they should sit at if they’re significantly too low at 8.7 ?
You can safely set them to 9.0 first and then see what happens.
For my part, I feel +0.3 matches are no different than full downtier matches.
From BR 9.7. you notice that the armor no longer provides reliable protection. So it happens in a way that the Germans, for example, don’t know any other way up until the Leo 2A7. But then both tanks are still agile enough to keep up well.
The poor penetration of the cannon is either compensated for by the rocket ammunition or by the simply insufficient armor of the opponents in the BRs.
They have no reason to be above Shot Kal Gimel or at the same BR as M60 TTS.
ATGMs are simply inferior to darts in most situations.
The T-62 is certainly a member of the weaker 8.7s. You have fast, forgiving vehicles with LRFs and competitive darts on one side, and those lacking those advantages on the other (T-62, M60 RISE, Chieftains, Object 435).
The weaker ones all share some common characteristics. They’re slow to mediocre in terms of speed at a BR where mobility becomes the new meta. They have armor that nominally seems decent, but put against rounds that trivialize it every game. Their firepower is unimpressive, and they lack the LRF that would allow them to be competitive at a distance where their armor would work.
They don’t nessesarily need to move down, but they shouldn’t be at the same BR as their notably superior BR-mates. As always, decompression is the answer.
Since when? This is not a common belief.
If the T-55s get the M1000A1 equivalents then I believe they can be moved up to 9.0, do you think the current T-55AM and T-62M1 is equal? for me the T-62M1 is a direct upgrade to the T-55AM after they fixed the optical zoom level, armor profile nearly identical as both has two composite plates at the turret cheek and one extra plate on the hull, only thing it lost is the reload time, the main ammunition is like 1br different even the barrel launch ATGM perform better. I personally find the T-55 quite mid, I can pull up the M60 RISE and has no issue center mass it with M735, doesn’t find any hesitation to engage it any time I get the chance, only thing my 8.7s are afraid of is a hull down Chieftain MK10 and Object 279, T-55AM is a point and click food even my ZTZ59D1 will delete it with near zero effort at mid range since it carry M111 equivalent lol
Ammo is not the only thing keeping these tanks from being higher…T-55 even with a DM23 120mm round would be garbage at 9.0 lmao
Why? They would be garbage.
The T-55s doesn’t seem to click with my playstyle either, the few times I’ve main the 3BM25 and find that ammunition absolutely garbage so I only carry the APHE to flank, my T-55A is so dogwater that it even struggles to hit 2.0 kdr, meanwhile the T95E1 that I expect it to be even more garbage somehow surprise me
At this point since everybody keeps saying the T-55 is OP, I just admit that I am garbage at it that’s all
The tank is fine but its very average at its current BR and raising it would make the issues it has way worse
Think it’s more an argument for decompression to be honest. Wouldn’t mind seeing ground raised to 14.0 and dragging up everything from 6.7. Id say the t55-AM1 is probably 0.7 BR higher in capability than the t62, as is the 435. In the same breath I’d say a t62 is probably 0.7/ 1.0 Br higher than a t54
The T-69 II G can be very good with DM23 105
But I would also say that the T-62 and T-72 are only 2 BRs apart when the T-72 is so much better in every way
T-62 and T-64A are suffer children from this BR range.
Yes, the T-64A apparently is inferior to the T-62M-1 in almost every way
I’d definitely say 64A is closer in performance to T-62M-1 than to 72A.
