Jump to content


Photo

The T-62


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#181 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 15 November 2018 - 1637 PM

Not odd when you consider the turret ring of the T-62 extends a considerable distance over the tracks.  While the same holds true for the M48/M60 and M1s, it isn't to the same extent as the T-62.  What does that mean?  It means one can't simply look at the turret ring diameter as the determining factor for crew space within the confines of the turret.  The T-62, regardless of the turret ring diameter, has far less usable space for the crew than contemporary western tanks. 

 

 

the roof is much lower than on NATO tanks. Seat and storage arrangements also can waste precious space. Also the cannon breech is quite large which also takes up space. The ejector mechanism also wants some space.

 

Ironically the 115 mm fixed cartridge ammuniiton is one of the longest used in tanks today.


  • 0

#182 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 15 November 2018 - 1758 PM

 

 

 

I posted this in the SADF vehicle books thread as well, but re-discovered this pic of a T62 being tested by the SADF at De Brug outside Bloemfontein. Would have been mid to late 80s

 
Just saw this. It reminded me of when they brought a T-62 and a T-55 to our M-60A3 bn in Illeshiem in 1983. I remember vaugly being more impressed by the T-55 than by the T-62 though I can't really remember why. Both were pretty well stripped so there may have been an illusion of more space in the one even though my 6' tall body put eye level right at the turret edge in the hatches when standing on the floor. 

That is certainly odd. The T-62's turret ring diameter is 2245mm which is pretty huge. It's bigger than the turret ring of the M48 and M60 and much bigger than the turret ring of the T-54.

 

Not odd when you consider the turret ring of the T-62 extends a considerable distance over the tracks.  While the same holds true for the M48/M60 and M1s, it isn't to the same extent as the T-62.  What does that mean?  It means one can't simply look at the turret ring diameter as the determining factor for crew space within the confines of the turret.  The T-62, regardless of the turret ring diameter, has far less usable space for the crew than contemporary western tanks. 

 

 

Considering the similarities between the T-54/55 and the T-62, it just doesn't make much sense that the T-62 is less spacious. The larger turret ring means that the turret is wider, and the internal height did not change. Obviously the T-62 and T-54/55 are still much more cramped than, say, an M60A1. That is pretty much common knowledge at this point.

 

I'd also like to add that the turret ring diameter is a good indicator of the amount of space available for the crew in the turret for tanks with turret baskets like the M48 and M60. The diameter of the crew space in the turret is same as the diameter of this basket.


  • 0

#183 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 15 November 2018 - 1839 PM

 

 

Not odd when you consider the turret ring of the T-62 extends a considerable distance over the tracks.  While the same holds true for the M48/M60 and M1s, it isn't to the same extent as the T-62.  What does that mean?  It means one can't simply look at the turret ring diameter as the determining factor for crew space within the confines of the turret.  The T-62, regardless of the turret ring diameter, has far less usable space for the crew than contemporary western tanks. 

 

 

the roof is much lower than on NATO tanks. Seat and storage arrangements also can waste precious space. Also the cannon breech is quite large which also takes up space. The ejector mechanism also wants some space.

 

Ironically the 115 mm fixed cartridge ammuniiton is one of the longest used in tanks today.

 

 

The roof is definitely lower, but the T-62 only stores 2 rounds of ammo in the turret. All the rest of the ammo is in the hull beyond the boundaries of the rotating floor. The M48 and M60 stores a lot of ammo in the turret (besides the bustle) which cramps the loader a bit. The breech of the U-5TS is large, but the ejector mechanism is placed in the path of the gun's recoil. You don't get more usable space by removing it.

 

115mm fixed cartridges are shorter than 100mm cartridges.


  • 0

#184 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 16 November 2018 - 1655 PM

 

 

 

Not odd when you consider the turret ring of the T-62 extends a considerable distance over the tracks.  While the same holds true for the M48/M60 and M1s, it isn't to the same extent as the T-62.  What does that mean?  It means one can't simply look at the turret ring diameter as the determining factor for crew space within the confines of the turret.  The T-62, regardless of the turret ring diameter, has far less usable space for the crew than contemporary western tanks. 

 

 

the roof is much lower than on NATO tanks. Seat and storage arrangements also can waste precious space. Also the cannon breech is quite large which also takes up space. The ejector mechanism also wants some space.

 

Ironically the 115 mm fixed cartridge ammuniiton is one of the longest used in tanks today.

 

 

The roof is definitely lower, but the T-62 only stores 2 rounds of ammo in the turret. All the rest of the ammo is in the hull beyond the boundaries of the rotating floor. The M48 and M60 stores a lot of ammo in the turret (besides the bustle) which cramps the loader a bit. The breech of the U-5TS is large, but the ejector mechanism is placed in the path of the gun's recoil. You don't get more usable space by removing it.

 

115mm fixed cartridges are shorter than 100mm cartridges.

 

 

There are only 2 ready rounds in the turret?  Wow I never envied the job of the loader in those tanks anyway but even less so now.  How quickly can the loader access the other rounds?  I do not think I have seen any stowage diagrams of the T-62 and I was always hoping that The Chieftain's Hatch would cover the T-62 so I could see what the internals look like as its always been a favourite tank of mine for some reason.


  • 0

#185 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted Yesterday, 12:55 AM

 
There are only 2 ready rounds in the turret?  Wow I never envied the job of the loader in those tanks anyway but even less so now.  How quickly can the loader access the other rounds?  I do not think I have seen any stowage diagrams of the T-62 and I was always hoping that The Chieftain's Hatch would cover the T-62 so I could see what the internals look like as its always been a favourite tank of mine for some reason.

 

draw1.jpg

 

Having not been in a T-62 before I don't feel qualified to give it a personal review, but the layout and ease of access seems fine in general. There are 16 rounds in the front hull ready rack directly in front of him, 1 round on the floor next to him, 1 round on the floor next to the commander, 2 in the turret next to the loader, and 20 at the back of the hull. If the turret is facing to the left, the loader has access to 20 rounds of ammo and 39 if the turret facing forward. If the turret is facing to the right, he has access to 23 rounds of ammo. If the turret is facing directly backwards, he has access to only 3 rounds. Despite not having much ammo in the turret, the ammo layout is good enough that there is always enough ammo within the loader's reach no matter where the turret is pointing.

Average loading speed according to the results of a live firing trial at a range was 6.5 seconds.


Edited by Interlinked, Yesterday, 06:08 AM.

  • 0

#186 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted Yesterday, 08:01 AM

The following rule was (is) applied. In a duell situiation the hull should be immediately turned in the direction of the enemy tank. As a result, the 16 cartridges were right from the driver in a quick access. In the East German army were housed all APFSDS cartridges on this shelf. For the Russians that was certainly also regulated in a similar way. For all targets where no dangerous duel situation was indicated, the time to load is not very critical.

 

Of course, the spatial conditions are always a compromise. But for larger interior with consequently more weight missing the more powerful engines. And one hoped also for higher survivability by low silhouette.


Edited by Stefan Kotsch, Yesterday, 08:04 AM.

  • 0

#187 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted Yesterday, 09:03 AM

Very interesting, Stefan. Thanks for sharing.
  • 0

#188 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted Yesterday, 09:26 AM

Thank you Interlinked and Stefan for those details of the T-62 and its ammunition placement/stowage information.  


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    DB