The T-62

[Rickard N]

None of those were put in production, were they? I thought that it wasn't before the M1 and Leo2 that anything else but British tanks had any composite armour in the west.

(oh, and I wasn't trying to make any suggestions that the Soviets couldn't be ahead, I sort of get that feeling about my post which was in no way intended. The "Right" was more of a "ok, that I didn't know")

/R

[Damian]

Yeah, neither HCR nor SCA were in the end mass produced. First mass produced western special armors were German and US ones based on results of British "Burlington" R&D program.

So the Soviets were first with mass produced special armor, the "Combination K".

[alejandro_]

Sixty years since T-62 was accepted into service. The link has some interesting data on the production. It was considered 15% superior to T-62 but only required 2% more manufacturing hours, 5855 vs 5723.

https://vestnik-rm.ru/articles/blog-tankoveda-1945-stranicy-voennoj-istorii/legendarnomu-sovetskomu-tanku-soldatu-t-62-60-let

[JWB]

4 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Sixty years since T-62 was accepted into service. The link has some interesting data on the production. It was considered 15% superior to T-62 but only required 2% more manufacturing hours, 5855 vs 5723.

https://vestnik-rm.ru/articles/blog-tankoveda-1945-stranicy-voennoj-istorii/legendarnomu-sovetskomu-tanku-soldatu-t-62-60-let

I think you mean superior to the T-55?

[RETAC21]

4 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Sixty years since T-62 was accepted into service. The link has some interesting data on the production. It was considered 15% superior to T-62 but only required 2% more manufacturing hours, 5855 vs 5723.

https://vestnik-rm.ru/articles/blog-tankoveda-1945-stranicy-voennoj-istorii/legendarnomu-sovetskomu-tanku-soldatu-t-62-60-let

I have this for T-62 production (including prototypes and pre-production):

Basic tanks

1960    3
1961    25
1962    270
1963    1069
1964    1521
1965    1450
1966    1420
1967    1505
1968    1957
1969    1970
1970    2280
1971    2215
1972    2209
1973    1620
Total: 19.014

Command tanks:

1963    31
1964    79
1965    50
1966-73: 500

Total: 660

T-62A: 5 in 1962

T-62 modernisations with BDD, etc.

1981   10
1982   25
1983   50
1984   100
1985   600

total: 785

 

[MiloMorai]

2 hours ago, JWB said:

I think you mean superior to the T-55?

As of 1968, the labor intensity of the T-62 tank almost did not differ from the labor intensity of the T-55: respectively, 5855 and 5723 norm-hours. The increase in labor intensity by 2% with a little "sixty-two" compensated for a 15% increase in the military-technical level - the result is more than decent.

[TrustMe]

What about increase in cost?

[alejandro_]

Quote

What about increase in cost?

This is an interesting question because other sources state that Soviet Union charged far more for T-62s than for T-55 (*), this being one of the reason why not many countries adopted it and sticked with T-55s. Yugoslavia's evaluation concluded that T-55 with advanced HEAT ammunition was broadly comparable. 

Having said that, you would expect cost to be pretty similar if manufacturing hours are almost the same.
 

Quote

T-62 modernisations with BDD, etc.

Thanks, I had not seen these data before. Do you know where you got it? I wonder if drop after 1985 is due to political changes or simply that dara is not available.
 

Quote

I think you mean superior to the T-55?

Yes.

(*) Up to 40% IIRC

[Stuart Galbraith]

The cynic in me wonders if they bumped the price up because they wanted to sell to oil rich Arabs. I vaguely recall the Iraqi's procured over 2000 of them, and many of those were second hand examples.

[Stefan Kotsch]

I also think the increased export price for the T-62 is a market price.  The only thing that gave the T-62 an advantage was the 115-mm smoothbore gun. However, there is no known firingtable for the 115 mm today.  A real evaluation is therefore difficult.

With the appearance of modern 105 mm APFSDS, this advantage should be canceled.  I think the T-62 is a little bit overrated. Better armed as the T-55, ok, but otherwise...

[Interlinked]

44 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

I also think the increased export price for the T-62 is a market price.  The only thing that gave the T-62 an advantage was the 115-mm smoothbore gun. However, there is no known firingtable for the 115 mm today.  A real evaluation is therefore difficult.

With the appearance of modern 105 mm APFSDS, this advantage should be canceled.  I think the T-62 is a little bit overrated. Better armed as the T-55, ok, but otherwise...

Aside from the gun, the main improvements were the somewhat enlarged working spaces for the crew, better ventilation, pneumatic assist for the clutch, and better turret protection. But the biggest improvement was, indeed, the gun. The flat trajectory of the APFSDS was a huge improvement in terms of the probability of hit, especially if compared to a T-54/55 firing HEAT rounds based on stadia range measurements.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Pneumatic assist for the clutch? This already own the T-55.

Enlarged working spaces for the crew? Well, you can argue there. The TC has more space, yes. It's gotten worse for the loader.

Better ventilation? With what? It is the same dust filter fan as in the T-55.

Better turret protection? Ok, the shaping is more favorable.  But did that help against APFSDS?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Stefan Kotsch

[alejandro_]

Quote

Better armed as the T-55, ok, but otherwise...

You don't think extra armour in turret is worth it (242mm vs 200)?  

Quote

The cynic in me wonders if they bumped the price up because they wanted to sell to oil rich Arabs. I vaguely recall the Iraqi's procured over 2000 of them, and many of those were second hand examples.

The extra cost was also for Warsaw Pact countries.

In the table below you can see T-62 yearly production. On the left is the total number and on the right the amount supplied to Soviet Army, which had absolute priority. I guess Soviet MoD wanted them to face M60 and other NATO tanks being fielded.

[Stefan Kotsch]

The T-62 has a combat weight of 37 t.  That's a ton more than the T-55.  The 115 mm gun alone, at 2350 kg, is 850  kg heavier than the 100 gun.  The armor of the turret should also be significantly thicker.  How did they do it at UVZ?

At the base of the turret the armor is thick, but it becomes thin towards the top. If UVZ have made a redistribution here in order to keep to the limit of 37 t, then ...

There is a clear contradiction here.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Stefan Kotsch

[Interlinked]

Regarding protection and weight specifically, the shape of the turret has a lot to do with it. A sphere has the lowest surface area to volume ratio of any practical shape, which influences the weight of the tank, and the shape itself has a good influence on protection. 105mm DM13 APDS fails to penetrate it at point blank range even with a hot propellant load to boost it over its muzzle velocity. No, it won't matter much against 105mm APFSDS, but that isn't a valid perspective. Almost two decades passed between the year that the T-62 entered service and the period when 105mm APFSDS appeared in Europe. And that was also the same time that the Leo 2 entered service. 

Loader's space isn't worse, the turret is much wider than the T-54/55's.

Ventilation improvement is from the crew getting personal fans, but perhaps one could argue that placing the blower behind the main gun is better than placing it next to the coax. Of course, this depends on how much the coax is being fired compared to the main gun.

But other than that, I forgot the T-55 already had that hydropneumatic clutch, my mistake.

[Stuart Galbraith]

What is the protection effectiveness vs 120mm L15 APDS?

[Stefan Kotsch]

Individual fans at the seats? I've never seen anything like that. Maybe at some point in the event of a late modernization?

And the rate of fire has decreased to 4 / min.  Why? The cartridges are not really longer, nor are they really much more heavier.

The 115mm APFSDS really was a big deal.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Stefan Kotsch

[Interlinked]

12 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Individual fans at the seats? I've never seen anything like that. Maybe at some point in the event of a late modernization?

Yes gunner, loader and driver all got those fans. Only commander did not. It was in all T-62 models since the first releases.

12 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

And the rate of fire has decreased to 4 / min.  Why? The cartridges are not really longer, nor are they really much more heavier.

The 115mm APFSDS really was a big deal.

Most likely due to a different method of evaluating the rate of fire, and not a direct reference to the speed of loading. Speed of loading is not worse than the T-54/55. According to the crew performance norms, there was no distinction between objects 155 and 166 in the time needed to ready the gun for the first shot (opening breech, loading one round). For example, if you look at the comparative trials of the Strv 103 and the M60A1 at a firing range, both tanks achieved an actual rate of fire of 4-5 rounds per minute. In theory, Strv 103 reloads in just 4 seconds and M60A1 can reload in around ~5 seconds. But the rate of fire is dependent on many factors other than loading speed. 

[Interlinked]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What is the protection effectiveness vs 120mm L15 APDS?

There are no known firing trials.

[methos]

22 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The cynic in me wonders if they bumped the price up because they wanted to sell to oil rich Arabs. I vaguely recall the Iraqi's procured over 2000 of them, and many of those were second hand examples.

According to Steven J. Zaloga's 2009 book on the T-62, Iraq was the largest foreign user of the T-62 and purchased 1,600 T-62 tanks over the years.

16 hours ago, Interlinked said:

105mm DM13 APDS fails to penetrate it at point blank range even with a hot propellant load to boost it over its muzzle velocity. No, it won't matter much against 105mm APFSDS, but that isn't a valid perspective. Almost two decades passed between the year that the T-62 entered service and the period when 105mm APFSDS appeared in Europe.

That is not confirmed by German firing tests against an actual T-62 captured by the IDF. Out of three 105 mm DM13 APDS rounds fired against the turret front, two barely penetrated (being close to the ballistic limit):

However only the area around the gun mantlet, coaxial machine gun and the gunner's sight were considered guaranteed penetrations. The rest of the turret was considered "safe".

Shots 66 and 68 penetrated, shot 67 failed to penetrate. Internally parts of the steel turret up to the gunner's sight burst off, so there was considerable after-armor effect.

The German analysis of the T-62 turret's steel armor showed that to stop an 105 mm DM13 APDS, ca. 132 mm of Soviet cast steel at 60° (264 mm along the line of sight) was required to stop it at 200 meters distance. At 67-68° angle, ca. 115 mm of Soviet cast steel (230 mm along the line of sight) was required.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, Interlinked said:

There are no known firing trials.

 

36 minutes ago, methos said:

According to Steven J. Zaloga's 2009 book on the T-62, Iraq was the largest foreign user of the T-62 and purchased 1,600 T-62 tanks over the years.

 

There is a new book out by James Kinnear and Stephen Sewell that claims (im not saying I have to believe it, but it claims) that Iraq may have bought as many as 2850 T62, from 1973 up to 1989. It did flog some of them off to other nations, and it lost something like 400-500 in the Gulf War.

Im not saying its right, but it may indicate there may be a certain amount of under the counter supply. Particularly as, for much of the time involved, the Soviets were keen not to be supplying a country that had invaded Iran. They themselves were supplying arms to Iran themselves to not get on their bad side.

It would be interesting to learn how many are in the Iraqi boneyards. I rarely seem to see photos of them, but then im usually looking for Chieftains.

 

[Interlinked]

2 hours ago, methos said:

That is not confirmed by German firing tests against an actual T-62 captured by the IDF. Out of three 105 mm DM13 APDS rounds fired against the turret front, two barely penetrated (being close to the ballistic limit):

However only the area around the gun mantlet, coaxial machine gun and the gunner's sight were considered guaranteed penetrations. The rest of the turret was considered "safe".

Shots 66 and 68 penetrated, shot 67 failed to penetrate. Internally parts of the steel turret up to the gunner's sight burst off, so there was considerable after-armor effect.

The German analysis of the T-62 turret's steel armor showed that to stop an 105 mm DM13 APDS, ca. 132 mm of Soviet cast steel at 60° (264 mm along the line of sight) was required to stop it at 200 meters distance. At 67-68° angle, ca. 115 mm of Soviet cast steel (230 mm along the line of sight) was required.

Yes, that's the thing, the shot must intersect with weakened zones to make a breakthrough. The best result obtained was cracks (with light passage) on the cutout for the gunner's sight, which should not be counted as the main turret armour, because the cutout is a weakened zone. No mention of armour bursting off was given in the report, as far as I can see, only that light passage is seen in the cutout. As you can see, the cracks are on the inner wall of the cutout, and while the gunner's sight would most likely have been damaged, the shot never passed into the turret.

 

 

[methos]

Two shots created cracks through which light passed and at least one was calculated to achieve the result at ranges exceeding 800 meters. These two shots were listed as "penetrations" in the charts showing the Sicherheitskurve, although the projectile didn't pass through the cracks.

It is true that the "penetrations" can only be achieved in the weakened zones (and that the definition for "penetration" is dependent on user), but the weakened zone of the T-62 accounts for a considerable area; depending on penetration criteria, up to 40% of the T-62 turret is vulnerable to 105 mm DM13 APDS rounds up to ranges exceeding 800 meters.

[P Lakowski]

Remember speculating on things like that decades ago....based on number crunching and calculations .

 

Maybe i should dust off my old IJIE papers.....

[Stuart Galbraith]

Do it Paul.