Well, I'd assumed he was talking about t-62 supporting infantry, as opposed to infantry riding in a t-62 (or on it, desant style. (which obviously has its own problems like less protection for them and it might not be compatible with ERA for obvious reasons.))
I suppose with enough modification you could get infantry in the tank by ripping out autoloaders/ammo stowage etc (israel has done this with the namer apc) but wouldn't that interfere with its role of providing fire support?
But in the end whatever use you propose for them it sounds like copium to me:
1. Whatever little use these vehicles have, the vatniks will take it and rub it in your face saying "but it coouuuld work, no?". If it was announced they were introducing BT-7s I get the vibes they'd be telling us about what great artillery tractors a BT-7 would make! On the flipside, they're implicitly acknowledging that they'd fail at any other role: anything a t-62 can do, a t-80bgtq+ (or whatever the fuck it was) can also do, and more. Think of it in a glass half-empty/half-full way.
2. Ideally shouldn't you be using a modern vehicle for whatever role it does? Prior to the war you had t-72, t-80, t-90. Is supporting the infantry not one of their possible roles? Is tanks supporting infantry not one of the tenets of "combined arms warfare"? Similarly, for artillery support purposes, t-72, t-80 and t-90 can be used, but also the dedicated msta-s. I would also assume modern optics/fire control systems/composite armor etc would make them better at those roles too.
