The T-62

[Gavin-Phillips]

KMTB still offers a T-62 upgrade:

 

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t62.php

 

Interestingly, gun chosen for upgrade is 120mm caliber, not 125. 120mm with one-unit round is probably easier to load in a confined space as in T-62 turret.

 

That T-62 upgrade sure looks comprehensive, I wonder what the cost difference would be upgrading say a T-62M tothat standard and building a T-80U from scratch.

 

Has anyone ever shown interest in the KMTB upgrade proposal?

 

Wasn't there also a DU round for the T-62 under development? I do not remember if it was ever fielded though.

[Marek Tucan]

That T-62 upgrade sure looks comprehensive, I wonder what the cost difference would be upgrading say a T-62M tothat standard and building a T-80U from scratch.

 

Or to say modernising T-72M1 from some surplus to say T-72 S standard...

[dejawolf]

afaik, ukraine also has a 120mm upgrade package for T-72, called T-72-120 with turret bustle autoloader.

[geronimo]

T-62D with "Drozd" active defense system:

 

[alejandro_]

T-62D with "Drozd" active defense system:

 

Interesting, you have any details on date or army belonging to?

[m4a1]

Long ago I've read of use of those tanks in Russian Naval Infantry.

[geronimo]

The picture is quite recent, I think preparations to 2008 May parade, somewhere in Russia. The T-62D is no longer in service, I think this tank was simply used as cargo for the tank transporter.

 

I don't know if the T-62D was ever in service with the Naval Infantry, AFAIK they only had the T-55AD.

[Richard Young]

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?

 

The T-62 was essentially a stretched T-55 with a slightly larger gun. When fired, the gun had to be lowered to horizontal in order for the expended round's empty case to be ejected from a port at the back of the turret and a new round loaded. this slowed the rate of fire, especially HE in support of infantry. The Warsaw Pact countries had begin either subcomponent production or all-out production of T-55 series by the time the T-62 arrived on the scene - it was different enough from the T-55 that converting production to it would be uneconomical compared to the small advantage that the T-62 offered over it. They decided to incorporate some of the improved components, like the engines and transmissions, in their existing and new T-55, and to rely on ammunition improvements to keep the 100mm gun effective enough until a replacement, which turned out to be the T-72, rolled up. APDS rounds and the later AT10 cqannon launched missile validated this decision. The "bridesmaid" T-62 ended up in the Middle East and North Korea.

[Richard Young]

I would suggest that if the improvement in tank-killing capability came at a cost in everything else, then the tank has become a tank destroyer. Probably the most egregious example of this would be the M1A1, a tank designed with the primary function of blowing up armoured vehicles, with a reduction compared to its predecessor in its ability to support infantry in a role other than blowing up armour which threatens them, which was the historical purpose of the tank.

 

NTM

 

 

Any deficiency in the M1's infantry killing ability is a function of ammunition procurement decisions, not the design of the tank, How is the M1, originally equipped with the same 105mm gun and the same ammunition, worse thatn an M60 with those?

[Richard Young]

Errr... now your pulling my leg, right Vas? (Or perhaps I misunderstood you since English isnt my first language). Are you saying RO even manufactures 115 mm mainguns? (Right, i havent googled it yet). If one would want to try and add some extra firepower to an old '62, why the h-ll just not design an up to date 105 mm round (like the ones the US M60s used during the 1990s. Cant remember the friggin name, but you know what I mean) and scale the sabot up a bit so it fits a 115mm barrel? I dont misstrust you anything, Vas. If you say so, it is so. But it just seem so ...outlandish?

 

Soviet design guns do not operate at the same pressures that Western guns operate: thus, the following (approximately):

 

Soviet 85mm ~= US 76mm

Soviet 100mm ~= US 90mm

Soviet 115mm ~= British 105mm

Soviet 125mm ~= German 120mm

[Guest JamesG123]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush there Richard.

 

The T-62 was essentially a stretched T-55 with a slightly larger gun.

 

Heh. Only if you think of the M-60 as a modified M-48.

 

 

When fired, the gun had to be lowered to horizontal in order for the expended round's empty case to be ejected from a port at the back of the turret and a new round loaded.

This was an automatic part of the reloading cycle and not as much of a handicap as it sounds.

 

The Warsaw Pact countries had begin either subcomponent production or all-out production of T-55 series by the time the T-62 arrived on the scene - it was different enough from the T-55 that converting production to it would be uneconomical compared to the small advantage that the T-62 offered over it. They decided to incorporate some of the improved components, like the engines and transmissions, in their existing and new T-55, and to rely on ammunition improvements to keep the 100mm gun effective enough until a replacement, which turned out to be the T-72, rolled up. APDS rounds and the later AT10 cqannon launched missile validated this decision. The "bridesmaid" T-62 ended up in the Middle East and North Korea.

 

No. The T-62 was designed as a TD and as a stop-gap counter to new Western MBTs (M-60, Cheiftain, etc) until something better could get developed (T-64, T-72). The 100mm gun was outclassed as soon as NATO started putting L7 guns on their tanks and the Soviets knew it. It was never intended as a general replacement for the T-55. There were many factors involved in why it didn't get adopted by WarPac armies, not the least was ammo logistical concerns. The T-62s got exported to the Middle East because that was where the major flashpoint of the Cold War was and they felt that it gave the Arabs their best bet against the Israelis. They were hardly "dumped" on them. They WERE later dumped in NK and Africa, but only after their usefulness had been superseeded by new generation MBTs, along with many many more T-55s, and other assorted Russian castoffs.

[bojan]

Soviet design guns do not operate at the same pressures that Western guns operate...

Please, tell us more...

Preferably with some sources.

 

Soviet 85mm ~= US 76mm

Nope. With decent ammo it had better penetration and was more accurate ironically.

 

Soviet 100mm ~= US 90mm

Which US 90mm? M3? M36? M41? Using which ammo? KE? HEAT?

 

Soviet 115mm ~= British 105mm

Again nope. It had better potential then early 105mm in both HEAT and KE ammo performances. Note that later 105mm is quite different animal then original British L7.

 

Soviet 125mm ~= German 120mm

 

Which 125mm? 2A26? 2A46? 2A46M? 2A46M4?

[dejawolf]

its true that the older 2A46 L/48 gun work at a lower chamber pressure than the 120mm RH120/M256 L44.

according to fofanov: 2A46 5100 bar. M256: 6300 bar(hunnicutt)

however, the 2A46M L/51 works at a chamber pressure of 6500 bar.

this is the tank gun installed in soviet T-72B, and T-80U.

Edited July 27, 2009 by dejawolf

[DKTanker]

Heh. Only if you think of the M-60 as a modified M-48.

Which is a quite accurate accounting. It is very fair to state the M60 was essentially an upgunned M48.

[Guest JamesG123]

Which glosses over alot of detail changes...

[DKTanker]

Which glosses over alot of detail changes...

There are significantly more detail and fundemental similarities between the M48A3 and M60 than not. It is indicative to how similar they were that when the M48 was upgunned with a 105mm, the M48A5 and the M60A1 were for all intents and purposes the same tank. You can quibble about the shapes of the hull and turret and the secondary weapon mounts but in the end, that's all it is, quibbling.

[Guest JamesG123]

You're being daft because they are NOT the same. And they aren't/weren't. An M-60 is not an modified M-48. And a T-62 is not a T-55. They rolled off the assembly lines at different time periods, contracts, etc. They have different specifications, capabilities, and their parts aren't interchangeable.

 

You might as well call apples oranges then...

[DKTanker]

You're being daft because they are NOT the same. And they aren't/weren't. An M-60 is not an modified M-48. And a T-62 is not a T-55. They rolled off the assembly lines at different time periods, contracts, etc. They have different specifications, capabilities, and their parts aren't interchangeable.

 

You might as well call apples oranges then...

The parts of M48s and M60s aren't interchangable? Where do you want me to start? Far more significant parts were interchangable than not, far more. As for their specifications and capablities, so close were they that there was no transitional training required for crewmembers (my first MOS was 11E M48/M60 Crewman) nor for the mechanics between the tanks. Not to mention they shared the exact same FM 17-12. The M48 and M60 weren't apples and oranges, they were more like slightly different types of apples.

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

Guys, there is no sense to argue. The question what constitutes a new tank (as opposed to *new generation* tank) is pretty delicate. To every definition you can come up there probably exists a counterexample. The T-62 was *considered* a new tank, and that's all that matters, commonality with T-55 notwithstanding. I think the same holds for M48 vs M60.

[dejawolf]

the difference between the M48 and M60 are about the same as the difference between the M1, and M1A1.

the M48 and M60 share the same engine

Edited July 29, 2009 by dejawolf

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

the M48 and M60 share the same engine

 

So does (more or less) T-34 and KV-1 Whereas M48A1 and M48A3 do NOT share the same engine

Edited July 29, 2009 by Vasiliy Fofanov

[johnr]

The simple fact is that they are evolved designs based on improvements in technology, I don't see how anyone can dispute that there is a clear line of development of the T34 through to the T62 even the T64/72/80/90 can be seen to be evolved from experience with earlier designs; the same with the M26 to the M60.

 

It is only when radical new technology or concepts is introduced that these lines of evolution are broken.

[bojan]

....I don't see how anyone can dispute that there is a clear line of development...

 

Because there ain't such line? T-34 "evolutionary" development ended with T-34/85.

New "revolutionary" line was started with T-44 and had T-44/54/55/62 as prominent members.

There are few things same on T-34 and T-44 other then gun.

 

of the T34 through to the T62 even the T64/72/80/90 can be seen to be evolved from experience with earlier designs

Again T-64 was a totally new "revolutionary" development.

[DKTanker]

the difference between the M48 and M60 are about the same as the difference between the M1, and M1A1.

the M48 and M60 share the same engine

I think perhaps it works better if you say M4A1 and M4A3E8(76) v M48A1 and M60. Both engines are different, both have different hulls and turrets, and both have different main guns. OTOH, the suspension systems and track for the M48/M60 are nearly identical while that of the M4A1/M4A3E8 are not. If one were to say M48A3 and M60 the differences become less than differences between many models of M4. If one uses the M48A5 and the M60, the differences diminish even more to the point of being negligible. In fact there is far greater difference between the M60 and M60A3 than there is between the M48A5 and M60.

[AdmiralB]

between the M48A5 and M60

 

Pretty much comes down to glacis shape, doesn't it?

 

For some reason, there are an inordinate number of gate-guard M60 slicks around here (American Legion, VFW, et al). Can't tell them from M48A5s until I see the glacis.