
The T-62
#1
Posted 02 March 2009 - 1457 PM
#2
Guest_JamesG123_*
Posted 02 March 2009 - 1630 PM
#3
Posted 02 March 2009 - 2039 PM
The T-62 was designed and built as a tank destroyer not an MBT.

Maybe because the Arab experience with the T-62 was a result of that tank not being produced in sizable numbers as the T-64 etc? Sorta like the relative that no one likes to talk about....

#4
Posted 02 March 2009 - 2047 PM
#5
Posted 02 March 2009 - 2137 PM
Well, yes. 20,000 manufactured compared to around 80-100,000 (for the T-54/55 counting China, Czech, and Poland). It was made not as a replacement to the T-55 but to spearhead their formations but when the T-64 and T-72 came along they became moot points.In reading about the history of Soviet armor, the T-62 doesn't appear to have merited as much attention as the T-54/-55 series or the later T-64/-72/-80 vehicles. Is this particular MBT seen as less of a success than the others?
#6
Posted 03 March 2009 - 0704 AM
#7
Posted 03 March 2009 - 0851 AM

Gavin
The only reason why T-62 appeared was because T-64 development took 5 years more than it should have. It's a stop-gap tank in a situation where Soviet command felt it was falling critically behind the West in armor capability and the future MBT development is stalled. For a stop-gap tank I'd say it actually turned out to be incredibly successful and influential.
Edited by Gavin Kratz, 03 March 2009 - 0853 AM.
#8
Posted 03 March 2009 - 0928 AM

#9
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1106 AM
#10
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1157 AM
#11
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1207 PM
Was there any specific reason the Russians jumped so fast from the 115mm gun to the 125mm as opposed to continued ammunition development? Did the development of German and British 120mm guns cause the Russians to panic a bit?
One reason I hear replicated alot concerning this particular issue was the introduction of the British Chieftain MBT and the problem of penetrating the British MBT frontally. Now whether this is true or not (myth's being repeated often enough become truth, etc) I really couldn't say although I'd be interested to see if it really if there is any truth in it.
In regards to the T-62 as a tank destroyer, this would certainly apply to the IT-1 - a T-62 chassis fitted with guidence/lauching equipment for the 9M7 Dragon missile, there was another ATGM armed version with a simple launcher (AT-3 Sagger?) mounted externally, although I've never seen a picture of this variant. As for the standard tank, more like an upgunned T-55.
When the IDF captured a few after the Arab-Israeli wars, did they ever make public their findings/thoughts/opinions on the T-62?
I do recall reading in Zaloga's Soviet Artillery & Design Practices that the 115mm weapon was a result of a large calibre tank gun being tested but never fielded as a stabiliser powerful enough to cope with the recoil couldn't be built/wasn't available at the time. Does anyone have any dates on this project, or an Objekt #?
As you can probably tell, I'm a T-62 and a KV-2 fan.

#12
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1246 PM
It seems that for the largest part of it's development, Object 166 was referred as "tank destroyer", although the project both started and ended (by T-62 going into service) as a "medium tank".In regards to the T-62 as a tank destroyer, this would certainly apply to the IT-1... ...As for the standard tank, more like an upgunned T-55.
Although there were attempts to outfit existing tanks with AT-3 launchers, AFAIK no "tank destroyers" ('eavy ones) or "missile tanks" used them. All known proposed "IT-1 variants" used 3M7 missile.there was another ATGM armed version with a simple launcher (AT-3 Sagger?) mounted externally
Doesn't seem to be true. It is said that U-5TS was derived from 100-mm D-54T tank gun, by reboring it to 115-mm diameter and removing the muzzle brake. It was decided from the start that the gun should be smoothbore, and the only proposed (not really...) alternative for U-5TS was T-12 100-mm AT gun. Later developments (Object 166B, Object 167) had 125-mm gun, but that was after T-62 entered service.I do recall reading in Zaloga's Soviet Artillery & Design Practices that the 115mm weapon was a result of a large calibre tank gun being tested but never fielded as a stabiliser powerful enough to cope with the recoil couldn't be built/wasn't available at the time. Does anyone have any dates on this project, or an Objekt #?
#13
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1300 PM
The influence of the T-62 can be seen from the German and US adoption of the 120mm smooth-bore cannon for the Leo2/M1 family. Before the advent of the T-62, tank cannons were rifled.
The tank was very similar to the T-55 in almost every respect (size, speed, armor). The main difference was in the adoption of the 115mm. The critical deficiency of the T-62 was that after each shot the gun had to elevate off target, align with the ejection to eject the shell, and then be brought back onto target. This made it hard to make accurate shot corrections.
#14
Posted 03 March 2009 - 1757 PM
The T-62 tanks provided a classic example of this. From the President's February visit we had learned that Moscow was to supply us with 200. We had to plan, in advance, how best to absorb them.
February 26: A meeting to settle the question. Sadiq in the chair. The T-62s, with their 115mm guns, were so powerful that, properly deployed, they could exert decisive influence on a battle. I proposed they be allocated to our two armored divisions and kept in reserve to deploy as and when the battle demanded. The Minister, along with Gamasiy and Guwhar, argued that they should replace the T-55s in our two independent armored brigades. (The difference being that our armored divisions functioned as independent battle formations; while the independent armored brigades-independent, that is, of the rest of our armor-were used as support formations.) The T-55s released from the brigades would in turn replace the older T-34s in other formations. I urged this would risk dissipating the potential impact of the T-62, especially if the independent brigades were dispersed in battle, as they could well be, to reinforce a variety of field formations. The Vice Minister, General Hasan, agreed with me.
February 27: The meeting resumed, this time with Soviet advisers. Sadiq sounded my colleagues one by one. Hasan had changed his views. I had not. Then the Soviet advisers spoke. They all agreed with me. Sadiq, displeased and with all his intelligence officer's antennae roused, turned to the Senior Soviet Adviser, "I see," he said to General Okunev, "you and General Shazliy are in complete agreement."
http://egyptianchron...Crossing23.html
The link contains Sa`d al-Diyn al-Shazliy memories on the Suez Channel crossing, and is very interesting, especially to anyone interested in the 1973 war.
#15
Posted 03 March 2009 - 2057 PM
Soviets were initially unimpressed, because Object 430 (which later became the T-64) was already well along in development, and Object 166 was seen as a rather expenive upgrade to the T-55. Then, fate interviened when an Iranian M60A1 fell into their hands and completely freaked out the General Staff. Object 166 was more or less ready, while Object 430 needed more work. They immediately rushed Object 166 into production as a stopgap measure.
Most telling of all is the fact that the T-62 ended production before the T-55 did. So it was not considered as highly important tank after the development of the T-64/72/80 series. In an ironic postscript, the 100mm HVAPDS ammo developed for the D-100 made the 115mm gun almost pointless. The cheaper T-55 stayed in production much longer because of this and the number of speciality vehicles based on its chasis.
Overall, as far as Soveit tanks go, the T-62 was fairly unremarkable (note that I'm not saying it was *bad*, and it can probably be best compared to the M48A5, which was also an evolutionary upgrade). Common criticisms included the fact was slow and couldn't keep up with BMPs, was more expensive, and the ejection system hurt ROF and second shot accuracy. Export customers appreciated the bigger gun though (like Egypt).
- John
Edited by Kensuke, 03 March 2009 - 2109 PM.
#16
Posted 03 March 2009 - 2109 PM
#17
Posted 03 March 2009 - 2112 PM
#18
Guest_JamesG123_*
Posted 03 March 2009 - 2312 PM
#19
Posted 04 March 2009 - 0244 AM
It was infamous for that in the same way that the T-72s supposedly grabbed arms and such. Probably more exaggeration than a common problem. The tank was a "tank destroyer" in that it was built as a direct response to the new generation of 105mm western MBTs. and it was fielded in a specific anti-tank role. Yeah it was classified as a medium tank or MBT, but I have read more than once of it being more a TD than just a regular tank.
Again. I think that's absurd, and I'd welcome a source to back it up.
All MBTs are designed to engage other MBTs, so that's not a very relevant to point out that they had the upgun it to remain competitive with western designs. Under that argument, the M60 and later model Centurions were TDs because they had bigger guns than the T-55, while the T-64 was a TD because it had a bigger gun than anything that mounted the L7.
Historically, TDs are smaller. lighter, faster, simplier, and cheaper versions of tanks. This is especially true for most Soviet designs. The T-62 is the antithesis to that. It was larger, heavier (though only slightly in comparison to the T-55), slower, more complex, and more expensive. Furthermore, it didn't sacrifice any armor or crew protection as TDs are want to do. Likewise, there were a number of tanks with big-ass guns that could be considered Heavy Tanks (T-10, M-103, etc.), but still not TDs because they had none of the above qualities/downsides of a TD.
True Post-war TDs would include the FV 4101 Charioteer, while modern TDs would include the various light AFVs that can mount ATGMs.
The T-62 an MBT.
- John
Edited by Kensuke, 04 March 2009 - 0253 AM.
#20
Posted 04 March 2009 - 0551 AM
By the way, the T-62 is technological on almost same level as the T-55. In the books "Battle vehicles of Uralvagonzavod" is written, the costs lie only around 15% more highly. An extraordinarily low-priced solution for substitution of the old T-55 MBT at the seam to NATO. The 115 mm of Gun knew into the 60' s destroy almost all MBT. 1974 received the T-62 a new sight with independently stabilized line of sight TShS-41U , that was a lack of the first T-62.
I think, the T-62 was a lock-up, because the T-64 did not come from the place away because of many problems. But nevertheless, were 20'000 (!) T-62 in 10 years to then the T-72 took over the relay stick. And naturally, the T-62 developed as MBT.
Edited by Stefan Kotsch, 04 March 2009 - 0554 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users