Jump to content


History of the T-62


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#21 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 01 February 2007 - 1848 PM

Bojan, there was a T-62A (not to be confused with the other T-62A/M, that mounts the 12.7mm AAmg) that was armed with a 10mm T-55 gun? I assume this was some kind of prototype.


The gun was 100mm in caliber, but it was completely different from the T-55's gun, more or less in 105mm L7 league.
  • 0

#22 Zampolit72

Zampolit72

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 February 2007 - 1901 PM

The gun was 100mm in caliber, but it was completely different from the T-55's gun, more or less in 105mm L7 league.


I wrote "10mm" that was a typo. I did mean 100mm. I thought it was the D-10. Never heard of the D-54. never entered serious production?

Edited by Zampolit72, 01 February 2007 - 1901 PM.

  • 0

#23 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0438 AM

I wrote "10mm" that was a typo. I did mean 100mm. I thought it was the D-10. Never heard of the D-54. never entered serious production?


It was a very good gun that had about same performance with KE round as 115mm. However the HEAT round was both worse and more expensive. But what really doomed the gun though was that Khrushchev loved the 100mm T-12 ATG that was shown to him ("1575 m/s, is it cool or what?!", literally) and demanded that new tank has a smoothbore. T-12 wouldn't fit so they basically rebored D-54.
  • 0

#24 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0624 AM

Khrushchev loved the 100mm T-12 ATG that was shown to him ("1575 m/s, is it cool or what?!", literally)


Khruschev critisised the generals in many occasions. According to him they were obsessed with tanks, which were made obsolete due to the development of missiles. The heavy breaktrough tanks were the main objectives of these critics.
  • 0

#25 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0709 AM

Bojan, there was a T-62A (not to be confused with the other T-62A/M, that mounts the 12.7mm AAmg)


Argh, do you realy understand anything? T-62 with AAMG is not T-62A/M - it uses same T-62 designation as base model.

that was armed with a 10mm T-55 gun? I assume this was some kind of prototype.
What sources are your information from?

100mm D-54TS gun. It is Object 164, and it was not quite a prototype - it was actualy acepted to service in 1962. but was newer produced - sources disagree why, but there is a theory that new AP(DS?) projectile for a gun was not finished in time, other being that gun designer fell out of favour...


It seems Bulgaria was the only Warsaw Pact nation to accept the T-62 into service. Any more info on numbers and introduction dates? or anything else? I've red one account from a Bulgarian tank crewman who wrote he was "in a t-62" during the 1968 intervention. Its suprising to me that Bulgaria should have gotten such and advanced tank, for its time, so early. Since, generally Bulgaria recieved older and not upto date soviet equipment.


Yes, Bulgaria used T-62s, but IIRC they got them in '80s... At one moment they converted all remaining in the recovery vehicles (TV-62M designation IIRC).
  • 0

#26 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0718 AM

Given that BK-5 were to the best of my knowledge only fielded in 1968 I find this more than a little surprising.


Vas is a confusion between projectile/round designation an issue here? BK-5 and BK-5m projectiles were definetly shiped to Yugoslavia with T-54A in 1961. Local sources list a BK-5 as having 275mm penetraation and BK-5M with 375mm penetration. In 1967 copy of the BK-5M was acepted to service (production actualy started earlier, in October 1966.) as M67 HEAT. It had 375mm penetration as claimed for BK-5M. It was however soon replaced with improved M69 that introduced improved explosive mix and wave shaper boosting penetration to 395mm. Here is a cutaway of of it:
http://elektron.tmf....m69_heat_02.jpg

Anyway, what are designation for all HEAT rounds available for 100mm D-10 gun series?
  • 0

#27 Jacques

Jacques

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,544 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Models, ARMOURED VEHICLES, making fun of the air farce

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0905 AM

Bojan, part of the problem dealing with the T-62 is that the West has made a specific designation difference in T-62's with the AAMG and those without it. It is a recognition point for many vehicle Identification sources and thus the T-62 has no AAMG, and the wests designation of a T-62A does have a AAMG. Obviously this also coincides with the redesign of the turret hatches so there is a place for the AAMG.

However, I also know what YOU mean. Just another instance of fun with east/west vehicle designations. <_<
  • 0

#28 FITZ

FITZ

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,500 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0906 AM

The T-62 is the forgotten Soviet Tank. There doesn't seem to be any information about its variants and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on them when there is information.

Any information on T-62 history and variants?


Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices - 1945-1995, while perhaps not definative, has as good a right up on the history of T-62 as anything I've got.

According to this, the Vagonka design bureau proposed to further develop the T-55 because that model did not improve on the T-54 in either firepower or armor. Work started about 1957 - several years before the M-60 became a threat. Originally, the T-62 was planned to have a more powerful D-54TS 100mm gun with longer tube and more powerful ammo. There was a competing 100mm smoothbore gun which Kruschev favored and insisted be adapted to tanks. It was not well suited for tanks so the ammunition was shortened and the caliber changed to 115mm to become the 2A20. T-62 was basically ready for production in 1960 but had stabilizer problems and the project was mired in political controversy since it competed with Kharkov's more revolutionary (but 100mm gun armed) Obiekt 430 design, all of which cause delays.

When the M-60 was issued to U.S. Army Europe in December 1960 and the Soviet's completed their technical evaluation a month later they were peeved to learn the M-60 had a 105mm gun - bigger than their tanks 100mm gun and the frontal armor could not be penetrated by the 100mm. This finally got things moving on the T-62 and production started in the later half of 1961. So while the T-62's design was not a reaction to the M-60 (it was what in the west would be called a "private-venture" built without a military requirement), it's production was a reaction to the M-60.

Obiekt 430 design work continued in parallel and eventually led to the T-64.

Like the M-60, T-62 was an evolutionary, not revolutionary design. It was basically a T-55 with a bigger gun and a longer hull so as to accomodate the longer ammunition of the new gun. Cost of the T-62 was figured as roughly 50% greater than the T-55 which may explain why it was not used by Warsaw Pact armies, even though the Czech's built T-62's locally for export.
  • 0

#29 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 02 February 2007 - 0939 AM

Some info
D-54TS aka U-8TS aka 2A24. After 2A20 (U-5TS`Molot`) proved to be good enough, works over U-8TS was cancelled 29 June 1962. 3 days later, 1 July 1962, production of T-62 with smoothbore gun started.
  • 0

#30 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 02 February 2007 - 1236 PM

Anyway, what are designation for all HEAT rounds available for 100mm D-10 gun series?


Bojan, I think I'll take a timeout on this. This is all very strange...
  • 0

#31 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,235 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 February 2007 - 1518 PM

These have been posted before...but they're worthy of another look...

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#32 CV9030FIN

CV9030FIN

    Former FDF tanker - current FDF PowerpointRanger flying the desk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:back home...
  • Interests:Tactics, technics. prosedures, technology and history related to armored warfare.

Posted 04 February 2007 - 1530 PM

These have been posted before...but they're worthy of another look...

Posted Image

Posted Image


Is there somekind of conclusion about test result of these screens? I belive that Russians had to got somekinds of positive test results of those "Schurzen" (=side protective plates) as those ended later in to production. Of course more test were conducted later and the result wasn't "Schurzen" but instead rubber sideskirts. Also nice to see predecessor of modern "RPG-gage". Thanks for the photos.
  • 0

#33 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 04 February 2007 - 1548 PM

I see that wikipedia was updated with bojan`s data ;)

T-62A (1962). Obj.164
This is NOT a designation aplied to a AAMG equiped T-62 but totaly diferent vehicle, armed with 100mm D-54TS gun, with "Kometa" two plane stabiliser.

Btw., Obj. 164? Is it not a mistype? AFAIR it was Obj. 165.
  • 0

#34 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 04 February 2007 - 1837 PM

That gun tube umbrella device strikes me as an excellent camouflage screen, once you cut and hung natural vegetation on it.... It would not last 50 seconds on a tank on the move, hence would have been for static positions. Any background on ii??
  • 0

#35 ABNredleg

ABNredleg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greensboro, North Carolina
  • Interests:Military History

Posted 04 February 2007 - 2016 PM

That gun tube umbrella device strikes me as an excellent camouflage screen, once you cut and hung natural vegetation on it.... It would not last 50 seconds on a tank on the move, hence would have been for static positions. Any background on ii??


The system was developed in 1964 and was called the ZET-1 (zashchita ekrannaya tankovaya - tank protective screen) According to Zaloga, a state commission thought it was a workable concept but the tank forces preferred to wait on the integral laminate armor of the T-64 and T-72. Both adopted the flipper panels to protect the hull.

Edited by ABNredleg, 04 February 2007 - 2017 PM.

  • 0

#36 iceHawk

iceHawk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 2258 PM

That gun tube umbrella device strikes me as an excellent camouflage screen, once you cut and hung natural vegetation on it.... It would not last 50 seconds on a tank on the move, hence would have been for static positions. Any background on ii??

I always though that it would have made sense for the Arab armies to mount it. The contraption would have probably stayed on in the dessert. Dont have the name of it but I remmember that it was tested and worked against HEAT rounds/ATGMs but like mentioned kept falling off in most european terrain. The sideskirts were utlilized in some T-72 models though.
  • 0

#37 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 05 February 2007 - 0721 AM

I always though that it would have made sense for the Arab armies to mount it. The contraption would have probably stayed on in the dessert. Dont have the name of it but I remmember that it was tested and worked against HEAT rounds/ATGMs but like mentioned kept falling off in most european terrain. The sideskirts were utlilized in some T-72 models though.

Your idea of a desert must be like a sandy beach....even oscillations on a highway would undo it and any idea of the gunner searching and traversing on the move would have to be abandoned. Like I said, looks great for static positions!
  • 0

#38 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2007 - 0932 AM

...Is it not a mistype? AFAIR it was Obj. 165...


Oops, it is a mistype, thaks for a corection... :)
  • 0

#39 Zampolit72

Zampolit72

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2007 - 1758 PM

What years did T-62s start receiving Applique armor? Any before the T-62M modernization (1983)? and did other less advanced variants also recieve Applique armor?

again, there is a real lack of good information on the T-62.

How common was the T-62D model? Was it just a experiment or did it enter serial production Drozd system?

Edited by Zampolit72, 06 February 2007 - 1810 PM.

  • 0

#40 arcweasel

arcweasel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:20th Century Military History, Military Hardware

Posted 06 February 2007 - 1821 PM

What years did T-62s start receiving Applique armor? Any before the T-62M modernization (1983)? and did other less advanced variants also recieve Applique armor?


I've seen some reference (internet only) to a T-62 m1980 with had the BDD armour but none of the other modifications of a T-62. Was this a lable attached to trials tanks? Perhaps a mod for Afganistan where the fancy new FCS was overkill?

Regards,

Jay
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users