Tank Chats #107 | T-62 | The Tank Museum 

It was quick... But every platoon had to have 3 chiropractors on call at all times... Seems just a bit cramped! I agree though, it does look great.

Mobility of t-62 was very poor.

@@zepter00 looks aren't everything, I guess.

"The tank isn't cramped, it's perfectly sized... for Oompa Loompas."

@@zepter00 14.5 hp/tonne is good. Dunno what u mean by slow.

Well spoke

the tank in the Beast of War was a Isreali captured T-55 with an 105 with the designation Ti-67 (Aka Tiran, captured in 1967)

Great movie, it's a cult classic. I hated the tank commander. He had leningrad ptsd excuse me stalingrad.

@Charles Yuditsky yeah I seen his point of view for the most part as well but killing innocent civilians know that's kind of didn't like that his character after that you know the gruesome put the guy underneath the tank tread part yeah a grimly remember watching that is a child of being a child of the 80 scary stuff

Great movie.

Willey's autograph in my tank guide is one of my most prized possessions, I just need Mr Fletcher's now, and I will be most pleased.

so youre saying you like long Willeys? :D

The Tank Museum has an embarrassment of riches in presenters. I would love to see a crossover with Willey and the Chieftan doing an Inside the Tank Chat :>

@Cody Sonnet He claimed the T-62 was a further development of the T-55 with a wider and longer chassis and turret ring, a 115mm smoothbore gun, and the same engine. What of that is wrong?

@@nickbull540 That is pretty awesome. Good luck in getting Fletcher's mark in there too.

Not enough Soviet Tanks for me. It was OK though.

@Hardy Thomas all tanks are amazing

Some countries print money, a few others stamp out tanks. Well...just one really. How very Russian. Reminds me of when Pepsi Co. was suddenly something like the 5th most powerful navy in the world because trade was banned via exchange of rubles to dollaroos, so: how about two deisel submarines and a surface fleet good enough to clear the world of piracy 😂

@@GarioTheRock Except that didn't happen. It was on the table to give Pepsi a bunch of old cargo ships, but not military combat vessels. That was part all made up by the media. Regardless, that never even happened. The Soviet Union collapsed before the deal was finalized, though Putin did eventually give Pepsi a cash payment for roughly the same amount they were expected to make from selling the ships for scrap

I still think that communist tanks were and are the best.

T-62 vs Abrams M1A2 v4. ^_^ Every tank analysis should be compared to the Abrams, lol.

Leo2 is better than Abrams all tank experts agree

Depleted Uranium skull

He had a really tiny penetrator tip

@@benfurriel4519 9

Oh yes he was! The ' 'Khrushchev Model 1959' ', or K-59 for short, was a secret prototype of a anti-tank political weapon. It's design, as crude as it may look on the surface, as pretty efficient: a Khrushchev unit would be attached to the back of a military truck and launch by a catapult into an enemy tank. Upon impact, the Khrushchev weapon would hit the target with his fist so hard, that the tank would be reformed into oblivion! Planned to be massed-produced for the late 60's, the project was abandoned in 1964 due to a lack of Khrushchev avaiable for mass production. True story!

he could destroy enemy tanks with his shoe

Actually worst thing with this one is not armor, fire power or speed. It's simply too MANUAL. There is no any supprt for fast and acurate fire. And fire on the move is useless. You can't hit anything in such case unless you are a tank-ace.

@@HanSolo__ if it's the cheapest tank available and your opponent is armed mostly with ATGMs and Toyota trucks, a T-62M is something you'd be very grateful for. Better than no tanks!

@@HanSolo__ Not true about firing on the move, during Soviet tests it had a 22% chance of hitting a tank sized target while moving at 2km. That is not too bad at all, and of course much more accurate at closer range.

@@CarlGGHamilton I dont think your data comes from trails with the first type of T-62. The tank got no real stabilization for both gun and sights. Well sights didn't even need it since the tank got no actual FCS. It wasn't any way more sophisticaded than T-55 in the 60s. T-55AM2 in 70s got problems with hiting at any speed over 20km/h and it already had stabilization, working but still quite simple FCS and non-digital ballistic computer which data based on meteorological sensor output. This and barrel thermal sleve and laser range fonder made it more modern tank than T-72 coming right from the factory. Even now 1 hit out of 4 shots at 2000m is something more of a luck in T-72M1. Not to mention Soviet rushed design from 60s. The Soviet data of this time on their tanks went far beyond the facts like into the propaganda area. We are talking about manually setting of the range and aiming via simple optic sights. Your best bet was experience. Not very common across conscripts.

@@polygondwanaland8390 I'm not talking its less useful on the battlefield than toyota truck. I say it is very old technology. It is a bit wider T-55 with more potent gun. Thats it.

heck.... i remember Americas army 2 (a video game made by the army sorta as a recruitment tool) back in 2004 or so.... it was HIGHLY realistic.... about the most hardcore you could get . like.... unless you passed training classes.... you could not play the game (stuff like having to qualify expert to go to sniper training... where you had to also qualify on that.... to use a sniper in multi player) . you also had to take a unit ID class.... different uniforms, trucks, tanks, helos . medic class.... which was just as good as a real first aid / trauma class then had to pass a simulated field test otherwise you could not patch your self up... or your buddys in multi player . and i STILL remember my EnE test (escape and evasion) you had to spend 1.5 hours crawling threw bushes and dodging spot lights to escape it took me like 40 times to beat it . the new americas army games are dog poop..... really poor quality COD rip-offs

@@kainhall I'm talking about 15 years before that, we used flash cards.

Me too. Memorizing silhouette charts from aircraft and tanks in School of Infantry, USMC, 1990, Camp San Onofre.

@@soldat2501 Nice! I was in Infantry School Ft. Benning 1990

@@luvr381 god damn you old! ;) . na, hey..... thanks everyone for your service (as im sure you have heard 1000 times by now..... at least i hope) . we still used flash cards in middle school to learn multi / division.... if it makes ya feel any younger ;)

It's the M version tho, so nothing new

@@mynameisloading4615 for militaries with smaller budgets who are more likely to go up against rebels in toyotas, sure it's fine. For what is supposedly one of the most powerful armies in the world going against an opponent who has their own tanks and ATGMs it's a bit of a death trap even with the T62M

@@mechano6505 they're being used not in the frontlines, but in conquered towns and by ldnr armies, so Russia can use more modern tanks for real battles

@@mynameisloading4615 I've seen several videos of them having attacked Ukrainian positions and like expected being destroyed. Seems they're giving them to the mobilized Donbass militias and South Ossetians, AKA cannon fodder. Keeping in mind they've literally sent these guys in with Mosins and no body armor/helmet it's not that surprising that they don't care to give them even older T72/T80s

@@mechano6505 That picture of a guy with a Nagant was a Ukrainian, not a Russian. Same with the Maxim picture that was going around. Also, what's the point of giving the latest generation equipment to untrained militias? The difference in capability in the hands of a poorly trained crew between the T-62 and T-72 is basically negligible, and Russia doesn't have any control over how those men are trained because it isn't their military. Unlike the west, Russia makes grand strategic decisions with the expectation of casualties. That's why every part on the T-34 was designed to break right as the vehicle hit the average service life. They knew they were going to lose them, and there was nothing they could do to prevent that, so they made sure the losses hurt them as little as possible

@Pretty Russian girl that is balșoi tank

@Cody Sonnet LA

Time for the Swedes ship some Stridsvagn S to Ukraine, as this one was constructed with T-62 as possible enemy.😊

Oo, when did this happen?

@@matthewwu115 1969 Sino-Soviet Border Dispute. Not many in the West knows this but it was one of the important factors that led to U.S-China relations.

I’m learning us-China realtions in 12th grade history

Thank you for this comment!

Well they actually made a copy of T-62 to level you could use some parts from T-54/55 to repair Type69. Just like with T-62.

@Omaid Shokouri Yeah, several M1 were roasted. At the same time, entire Iraqi army was, too. I wonder, they did they see that coming when invading Kuwait...

Iraq had huge Berm and Trench defences they thought were impenetrable. Abrams tanks just powered through and buried or crushed anyone standing behind.

Na it's just that the bone yards where full if them, that doesn't mean that they are any good

@@jzsbff4801 True. But anyone who's played Wargame on PC knows you field what you have, thus all countries field older units. And they can do really well-surprising people. Wargame is very realistic compared to something like C and C. As a kid, I marveled at how old so much of Britain's fleet was during the Falklands war of '83. Things are different now, with their Queen Elizabeth's and Type 26s, and Type 23s being phased out. We're near the beginning of procurement, and the West is a generation ahead, because the Soviet Empire collapsed in '89. That's why even the outgoing Type-23's are still cutting edge. But weapons systems are expected to remain in service for 40yrs. Some, like the F-15, already have fifty yrs -and will probably still be around in seventy. The B-52s will get a century. Think about that. The entire reign of the dreadnought battleship, was forty years: 1906-1946. So anything that's been around longer than that: is not to be sneered at, because it was never junk. No-one builds thousands of a bad design-that's a successful design. People rubbish the MiG-23 in the West, but elite Russian pilots (I assume many are dead now in Ukraine), have scored 1-1 vs MiG-29s in mock dogfights with it. The T-55 is essentially a perfect tank and the first MBT, so everything since then-is really just an improved T-55, that especially goes for T-80, but also T-90 which is a perfected T-72. In it's day, NATO couldn't penetrate the front of T-72, and it was (and remains), awesomely mobile, so long as it's going forwards. But I would say as a general rule, the older and more outdated the weapon system, the better your tactics HAVE to be. Because they're profoundly vulnerable to the right weapons. Russian tactics are just atrocious and have lost many tanks, Ukraine are using their tanks far more effectively. Which is also keeping them alive. That's what the West does, who the Ukrainians are fighting like, the Russians just throw their tanks and their crews at everything-straight out of WW2, losing them forever. A T-62 could destroy many if not most things on the 21st century battlefield, but can ONLY be used with good combined arms tactics-unless you're prepared to lose them and their crews. Combined arms is expensive and requires long training, we see Russia does neither. They can't even equip their soldiers with proper clothing in Winter.

@Omaid Shokouri "Americans only invade countries that doesn't have a strong army." Oh sure, the Germans didn't have a strong army, the Japanese didn't have a strong army. Those panzers must have been a joke, shame what they did to Russia in Barbarossa though.

I love antique tanks upgraded way beyond any sensible design, like the Russian Marine T-55s that were equipped with gun launched missiles, a full ERA kit, and the world's first hard kill active defense system.

The simpler the design the longer it still can remain viable

interesting...kinda good because the roads only had to be rebuilt once ;)

Indeed. The other Soviet tanks dont have such loud clacking. Well none was called "duck" in Poland in 70s like T-34 was...

Agreed. Pins being jostled in that manner is not good maintenance. I suppose such a design might allow more sideways (yaw) flexing of the track, but I wouldn't like the idea of allowing tracks to open themselves up through unnecessary wearing of the track pin retainment.

@@Christopher-N but it worked didn't it? .. simple and a very cheap way of making sure the pins don't fall out .. That why NATO tanks cost much more and can be considerably over engineered. In a battle simplicity often wins out. Case in point .. German Tiger roadwheel layout .. too elaborate and they often got chocked with mud and where a bugger to repair.

Accorfing steven zaloga.t62 tank was produced in czechslovakia for export only.

​@@richardque4952 Maybe he's where that (allegedly) incorrect idea originated.

Gaijin: But we found this single unconfirmed report on a website from 2003 that claims someone once saw one firing at 15rpm, so we're going to make it 14 for balance.

There’s no Soviet bias in ANY of the tank games made by Russian developers comrade!

Historic: 1 round needed to kill a tank Arcade: 7 rounds needed to kill a tank

@@Paciat And you really want to drive three hours, then sit an hour in the bush and then get a "game over" without even knowing who shot you, right? Because that is how hardcore tank simulator would be. It obvious distances and time have to be reduced to make things fun. _AND_ the lifetime of the tank in the battle has to be prolonged.

@@azgarogly @Paciat to be fair, there are a lot of ways to make realism fun ie missing shots, bouncing off armor, wounding/non-critical damaging shots. Not to go down either slippery slope of a game that takes too long or goes by too fast. Historical accuracy can be fun.

T-62 was never built in Czechoslovakia. Only T-34/85, which was replaced by T-54/55 and later T-72.

The entire Warsaw Pact was a buffer zone and nothing else. Our job was to slow down NATO while the Red Army prepares for a classic in-depth defence. Even Belarus and Ukraine was part of the defence line ready to be sacrificed for time. The USSR was a mean thing. No wonder everybody rushed towards the EU and NATO once it was possible.

Thats a T-72 ejecting only the metal base of its propellant charge though, T-62s lob much heavier full size shell cases

@@falkpetersen lucky for him, then!

Actually its because the Russian federation is running out of tanks

@@bigglasses2625 it's a joke

@@bigglasses2625 probably not because of running out of tanks

This video has some explanations why t-62 are beeing sent ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LCZU1XdNb_E.html

@@cluemantherandom6020 they are coz they were canabilized and those t-72s they have are less modernized than t-62s they brought and can be modernized more later, there will be no later for russia. Glory to Ukraine

It came to be true in the Russo-Ukranian war, where a BTG was literally wipe out during a river crossing.

Do you know by any chance how many versions of the t-72 Russian military has in service and any charts or other tools that can be used to identify the deferent 72 models????

@@robertschultz6922 I’m sorry I can’t help, I’ve been out of the army for quite a time.

@@371gm no problem, is your handle a play on a medication dosage, 371 grams?

@@robertschultz6922 no my police number and my initials

Georgia used post war T-34 covered with cage of slat armor. And it actually worked against any BTR or BMP. Because of this bar armor you couldnt punch it so easy with regular RPG7. I wonder which gun they had on these 85mm? 100mm?

@@HanSolo__ Probably 85mm, I know there was experiments with a 100mm gun on the T-34 but from what I know it was never successful (too much gun for the turret ring). Makes sense that slat armor would work against a BMP-1 because it's just a low velocity HEAT shell. BMP-2 only has an auto cannon, which would struggle against T-34 armor.

​@@HanSolo__ They would have been using the same 85mm gun they had in the war. The Soviet Union really made little effort to upgrade T34s once the T54 came online because they had little confidence in it being useful anywhere near the frontline due to its poor armor and often atrocious condition due to the haste with which most had been manufactured. The only reason any T34s remained on the books after the mid 1950s is the Soviet Union/Russian Empire had been too desperate for weapons too often in its history to discount the value of having even obsolete ones around as a last resort.

@@genericpersonx333 A tank is still a tank, and even a poor tank is a great asset when your opponent doesn't have any. I'm sure the T-34s that ran into T-62s wouldn't have fared well, but an 85mm shell is going to make very short work of a BMP or BDRM.

@@genericpersonx333 Yeah You are right. Those were tried in shooting but nobody said how they did in it. Just like 152mm canon in T72/T-80/T-90. But, even in T-14 its gonna be the problem. Post war T-34/85 were not that bad in their quality. You can see such nice piece in Nicholas Moran T-34 "Inside the hatch". The hull and turret are made with far better alloy and those are face hardened now making actually an armor, not a pot steel plates welded together with 1-2cm gaps between em.

That's if the gunner and other Russian tank crewman don't become Kosmonauts first. LOL! You'd think Russia would be hard pressed to find soldiers volunteering for tank duty these days.

@@johannjohann6523 the turret flinging isn’t a Soviet only thing. It’s happened to Leopards too. AFAIK it only happens mostly to soviet tanks because their turrets are so much lighter than western ones that the force from the ammo exploding (which can happen in western tanks too) is able to shove it up.

😂 clever, even with that silly super rifle grenade thing it could fire.

Now THAT... was a clever tank knock-knock joke...

@@KapitanPoop PanzerKnacker

😂

Well Ukrainians are running out of Javelins and NLAW's, so this is just a way to make them run out faster

Cost of a T-62 us $300,000, cost of a Javelin is $372,000 (or $457,000)

@@TannerWilliam07 haha, no. Javelin production is ramping up, and the US still has massive reserves to send. If you believe that the Ukrainians are going to run out of Javelins, I have a pontoon bridge to sell you.

@@TannerWilliam07 Javelin is 125K

@@TannerWilliam07 Well the thing is that T62 armor is weaker anyway than T72 or T80 so they would be more vulnerable to even older generation anti-tank weapons. And if you havent been following the news, the west is committed to supply Ukraine even heavier weapons like M270 MLRS.....USA especially is willing to do as much as possible without actually sending their own troops in to see that Russia fails. So if anything they are ramping up the production of Javelins and NLAWs to make sure Ukraine can defend itself, all military production is going up in the west while Russia is going to have much harder time to replace their losses, so the more Ukranians are able to cause losses to Russia the harder it becomes for them to gain more ground. The fact that they are now taking T62s out of the storage and sending them to Ukraine is a proof of that. Russia is not able to replace their equipment losses for very, very long time, heck T14 Armata was supposed to be their next gen mass produced tank and turned out it was too expensive to produce and now they even have two of their biggest tank factories shut down because of sanctions, so they are not even able to modernize more of their T72, T80 or T90 tanks

This is correct. The T-62 was never built outside of the Soviet Union and was not used by other Warsaw Pact nations since they opted to wait for the much more capable T-72 to be available, as the T-62 was not a sufficient advance over the T-55 to be worth the cost..

I know right?

I think he's right that Czechoslovakia did produce them in the the 70s and 80s but it was only for export, so they were never used by their own army. The Soviet factories stopped building them in 1973 when they switched over to T-72 production but the Czechs realised there was still demand for them in other countries so they started producing them for the export market.

@@alieu156 Czechoslovakia did not produce a single T62... I'm from Slovakia, i was born in 1977 former Czechoslovakia.. i have access to such details... there was a law, that prevented exporting military material that was not in use by CSLA.. Czechoslovakia esported T54 tanks (2700 built between 1958-1963) T55 tanks (8300 built between 1968-1983), and later T72 tanks (1700 built between 1981-1990)

@@cwjian90 Bulgaria took delivery of some T-62s in the seventies. Mongolia, which was a Soviet satellite state, also took some.

Me too 😉

You know that the tank that actually starts every morning is by far German Leopard? It takes close to 3x more time to bring it to service than T-72 or T-62. Such tank is not the cost in tank batalion During first year of use it will eat more money in fuel parts and work than you will pay for it when purchasing. Thing with the Soviet era tanks is that you can buy 5 Soviet engines in the price of single Maybach of 800 series for a tank. Leopard 1 and T-62 initial costs are the same. Its the maintenance costs and possibility of servicing in any poor chop-shop makes T-62 a choice No1. It also came in numbers that make possible to buy 12 to use and 12 more to cannibalize for spare parts. Its not that easy to get 25 Leopards in good shape and price. T-62? I bet Russians still have some for sale in "like new" condition.

If I had to go on a duel I'd pick the pick up with the rpg. I'm sure the pick up would turn around faster than the turret of the t-62

@@HanSolo__ Yeah but in Russia "like new" just means that the engine will start with a few hours of shade tree mechanic type work.

Have you seen "The Death Of Stalin"? Not supper accurate but really damn funny

@@kden9772 ..it's more accurate in the ethos & events of the times, than it is not, but yes, it has some finction that they, the makers admit themselves; ..but close enough in ways to get banned in Russia for triggering 'dinosaurs' to start a punch up during a radio talkshow, that Duma/Kremil/Putin feared would cause riots, well thats the reasonthey gave to ban it. And yes it both highly funny and insideous scary of the times of/during the Soviet Cold-War regime.

Hearing David say "deposed" made me smirk.

@@kden9772 Come on Georgy, Staging a Coupé here

Yea I guess in a way he was deposed

If the belly of the tank isn't buried in mud, you just open the hatch in the lower hull and exit out the bottom of the tank. You still get flooding, but it is very slow, and if the mud is too deep, the slow flooding allows you time to get used to breathing water.

I got told that the bit on the end of the T-55 gun is not actually a fume extractor but a counterweight.

It's such a typical "tank" shape. The quintessential tank.

I wonder how well they have been stored. If store well they will come out fine as the day they went in. If store poorly they might be little more than junk.

@@Privat2840 Well considering conscriptovich is in charge of maintaining the depos...

@@vladevteev3031 You've not been keeping up to date on this.

Think there using the T-62M. It's the upgraded version with tech.

Sadly

4 months later and Russia has started fielding the T-62 in Ukraine.

They developed the personnel ejection system too, with all that loose ammunition next to the crew!

Actually, no, since it doesn't yet have the autoloader.

@@JohnHughesChampigny the problem is not the autoloader, it's the ammo at the bottom/below the turret basket

@@righty5890 True, that's what the Chieftain says in his latest video on t72 switchology. Of course, as he points out that means that other tanks, like the LEO2 for example could suffer the same problem -- they just haven't been shot at enough for anybody to notice. Also there are a bunch of reports that the Ukranians regularly go into battle with the reduced load of 22 rounds in the carousel because they thing the random charges splattered around the inside of the fighting compartment is too dangerous.

In economic terms, it was pretty much state-capitalist.

@Cody Sonnet Stop being silly. We had an election back in December - a proper one, not the Russian "stuffed ballot box" kind.

@@thodkats It was anything but.

@@GARDENER42 Oh Really? Without checking the internet, name your police commissioner, mayor, and local councilor. The country is run by faceless civil servants system with an elected administrative officer that no one remember as speak person. Citizen don't get to decide anything unless there is a referendum.

@@andyfu9651 You're a delusional loony.

Yes, it can be fired. The loader can extract the casing manually if necessary.

@@cwjian90 Thanks for replying.

These are generally only for vehicles that they have in their collection, and I don't believe they have a T-64.

The T-64 is rather rare for a Soviet tank, and was never exported. I believe most of the Soviet tanks in their collection were captured from other nations, such as Middle East countries, like Iraq. (I would look it up, but the Tank Museum site was redone recently, and the collection list is still incomplete.)

T-54/55 I think. Depends on my mood.

@@daviddevries8242 lol

i'm sure we'll see plenty of drone footage of T-62s blowing their tops when nlaws, javs, tows, stungas, and excalibers hit em.

@@MrSGL21 Some of it perhaps. NLAW's cant penetrate them. TOW are few but good. Javelins - 1/3 can be fired because of battery problems and poor maintenance. Plus some T-72's have survived 7 of them and some none. It is good idea but bad execution. Stungas, I have no clue if they are any good. Excaliber is best of all. Still once it is used, it needs to change position. I've seen videos where it was used and it had decent performance. That leaves the simple RPG as the best solution. Most of these weapons have a problem of range. T-62 out-ranges all but Excalibur. I am under impression that even Grad is better and more reliable solution than most high tech crap NATO sent.

Their turrets won't fly but otherwise they'll be as vulnerable as any other tank to those AT weapons.

It doesn't make much sense that the pins would all be loose, and be loud enough to overcome the engine noise. Thanks for commenting this