Military Review

Stories about weapons. Tank T-62 outside and inside

59



A lot in common with the previous hero of our reviews, a tank T-54/55. As simple, convenient, reliable as its predecessor. Yes, the war in Afghanistan revealed the flaws of the tank, but more on that below.

In the appearance of the T-62, the main role was played by our intelligence. It was thanks to the clear actions of our intelligence officers that the leadership of the country promptly received very unpleasant information.

It was about the adoption by the NATO countries of new tank guns of caliber 105 mm. This gave a significant advantage to the likely enemy’s tanks over our T-54 and T-55.



By that time, it was no secret that our X-NUMX-mm cannon of the T-100 tank did not penetrate the front armor of the American tank M55 Patton III, but the Americans already had the M48 Patton IV on the way. With the new gun, the M60 generally started to have such an advantage that it caused serious concern to everyone in the Union.

But it is worth agreeing that not only we were able to catch up and overtake us, but we knew how to masterfully. And since the time of Joseph Vissarionovich.

In Nizhny Tagil, where the Uralvagonzavod design bureau is located, since the adoption of the T-54 began work on the next generation tank. This is the so-called "Object 140", which was built in metal, but did not go into the series. However, the developments of the “140 Object” went into action and were applied when creating the “165 Object”, the prototype of the new tank.

Stories about weapons. Tank T-62 outside and inside


The 165 object inherited from its predecessor the hull, turret, engine compartment, transmission, and mechanism for automatically throwing sleeves through the turret hatch.

The “165 object” was planned to be armed with a new 100-mm rifled U-8TC tank gun, which was an upgrade of the D-54TS gun. In principle, all the innovations of modernization consisted in the stabilizer "Comet" instead of "Lightning" on the D-54TS.

“Comet” was a more modern stabilizer, but the problem was not the stabilization of the trunk. The gun had a whole heap of claims, the main one of which was the inadequate penetration capability of the projectile.

It is quite logical that, at the same time as the “165 Object”, the development of the “166 Object” began, for which another tool was being developed.



If correct, then, of course, do not develop. The gun had already been developed by that time in the Design Bureau of the Yurginsky Machine-Building Plant No. XXUMX. It was developed as a particularly powerful anti-tank gun T75 caliber 12-mm.



A feature of this gun was the lack of rifling in the barrel. The gun was developed smooth-bore, and here's why: cumulative projectiles have a greater penetrating ability, if they do not give the torque.

For the T12 cannon, special feathered armor-piercing shells were developed, which also did not need to be given a rotational moment. At a distance of 1 km, this gun pierced armor with a thickness of 215 mm, which in theory was quite enough to fight the main tanks of NATO countries.

Naturally, the idea of ​​installing a T12 on a tank immediately arose, since it happened so that a smooth-bore gun was almost half as powerful as a rifled gun.

However, in practice, everything was not so simple. The shells developed for the T12 could not be used in a tank because of their size. The length of the unitary cartridge was 1 200 mm, which is perfectly normal for artillery guns, but it is simply unrealistic to turn in a tank with such a cartridge.

Therefore, the smooth-bore cannon for the tank had to be made from Y-8TS. In the 100-mm cannon, rifles of the barrel were removed, which increased its caliber to 115-mm. Due to the lack of rifling, it became possible to significantly increase the pressure of the powder gases and thereby increase the initial velocity of the projectile.

The new gun had no muzzle brake, which was welcomed by the military. The barrel of the gun was lengthened. Thus, the world's first tank-smooth-bore gun U-5TS “Hammer” was born.

Contrary to many concerns, the accuracy of the new gun was at the level of the best tank rifled artillery systems of the time.

The base model T-54 also underwent changes and modifications. The gun course on the new tank was removed, and the method of fastening the twin PKT machine gun was changed due to the replacement of the gun.

The new tank gun was too heavy for the Kometa and Molniya gun stabilizers in service. Under the new instrument was developed a new stabilizer "Meteor".

The layout of the tank was classic: the front housed a command compartment, followed by a fighting compartment and, in the stern of the tank, the engine compartment.

On the left side of the control compartment was the driver’s seat, which fell on him through a hatch located directly above the seat in the under-armored armor. Behind the seat in the bottom there was a spare escape hatch.









At night, the night vision device TNV-2 was added to the optical instruments, which allowed the driver to see the road 60 m in front of the tank. The infrared headlight was located next to the normal headlight on the right side of the housing. Under water, the tank was controlled by a heading indicator.



In the fighting compartment there was a tank commander (left behind in the tower), a gunner (front right to the tower) and loader (rear right in the tower).










[center] Place commander
















[/ Center]

The roof of the tower housed two hatchways that opened ahead: the left one for the commander, the right one for the loader.



On tanks manufactured with 1972, a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun DSHKM was placed behind the loader's hatch. Ammunition for the machine gun consisted of 300 cartridges in tapes.

Ammunition for the gun consisted of 40 shells and was located in the fighting compartment. Since the unitary cartridges weighed very well, from 22 to 30 kg, the most physically strong guys were selected for the role of loaders. But at the same time a large weight of the projectile became the reason for the development of the automatic loader.

And AZ "Acorn" was developed and even tested on the "166 Object". But T-62 went into a series without AZ, which had been brought to mind for quite some time. And “Acorn” served as a prototype for creating an automatic loader for the T-72 tank.

The power plant was a 12-cylinder four-stroke diesel В-55В horsepower 580. Cruising on the highway was 450 – 650 km.

The tank was equipped with an anti-radiation protection system that could operate in both automatic and semi-automatic mode. With the help of a blower-separator, an overpressure was created inside the tank, which did not allow poisonous substances to penetrate inside the machine in the event of its depressurization.

The T-62 was equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. Fire extinguishing equipment extinguished the fires in the appropriate compartment with a mixture consisting of ethyl bromide, carbon dioxide and compressed air. It could also work in both automatic and semi-automatic modes.

In the summer of 1961, both the “165 Object” and the “166 Object” were recommended by the Commission for adoption. The “165 Object” got the index T-62, “The 166 Object” became the T-62.

T-62A released an experimental series of the number of 25 tanks, and then stopped its production, so as not to "produce" an excessive number of models.

T-62 was produced in the USSR before 1975, in Czechoslovakia - from 1973 to 1978, and in the DPRK from 1980 to 1989. All were released about 20 000 machines of various modifications.



The T-62 was first shown at the 7 Parade on November 1967 of the year. The first combat use was attributed to the events of 1968 of the year in Czechoslovakia, but since there were no active hostilities there, it is not a full-fledged use.



T-62 received a real baptism of fire in 1969 during the Soviet-Chinese conflict on Damanskiy Island. A platoon of three T-62s tried to help the border guards defending the island by navigating the Ussuri branch that separated them on the ice.

The Chinese shot down a tank of Colonel Leonov, who died along with the crew and could even seize the tank. Chinese experts carefully examined the T-62 and used the Soviet technical solutions found in it when designing their model of the Tour 69 (WZ-121).



T-62 was actively used in Afghanistan. Naturally, the car that showed itself well in the battles began to be transferred and sold to other countries.





The tank fought a lot in the Middle East as part of the Syrian and Egyptian armies during the Six Day War and the Doomsday War.



Subsequently, T-62 under the name “Tiran 6” fought in the Israeli army, as more 200 machines were simply abandoned and lost by the Arab military due to command errors and unprofessional crews.

Syria later used its T-62 in the Lebanese 1982 war of the year. The Iraqi army actively used T-62 during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 – 88, during the attack on Kuwait and during the defense during the Gulf war in 1991.
T-62 was used by Libyan troops during the invasion of Muammar Gaddafi’s troops into Chad in November 1986, as well as during the joint French-American operation “Dawn of Odyssey” in 2011.

Today T-62 actively participate in the war against terrorists in Syria.

In general, the T-62 has proven to be a worthy successor to the T-55. Equally simple, reliable, easy to maintain and maintainable.

The fighting showed that the maximum pointing angle of the gun at + 16 ° is insufficient, especially in mountainous conditions. Application in the deserts of the Middle East has brought problems during operation associated with dusting. Ammunition in 40 shots is quite good, but due to the large size of the shells, only part of the ammunition is located in the turret. For the same reason, used cartridges are not returned to the packs, but are thrown through a special hatch.

But in general, it was a great fighting machine of that era, which showed itself worthily on the battlefields.

Sources:
Baryatinsky M. Medium tank T-62.
Statsenko A. T-62: smoothbore returns.
Author:
Photos used:
Roman Skomorokhov, Roman Krivov
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 15 July 2018 07: 19
    12
    Amazing tanks were developed in the USSR. That's what school means!
    1. Royalist
      Royalist 15 July 2018 18: 52
      +3
      The most interesting thing is that the Soviet tank school was created on the basis of the French and partially American. And now the paddling pool with his Leclair "lost their way", and the amers Abrams so-so. At present, only ours and the German tank schools “rule” now, and all the others either imitate or take and develop someone’s model. How South Korea took the first Leopard and know how to improve it yourself, and now the Turks are engaged in tank building, with the help of South Korea. China and the DPRK are based on our experience, as with the T62-Type-69 tank.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 21: 29
        +4
        Quote: Royalist
        The most interesting thing is that the Soviet tank school was created on the basis of the French and partially American.

        Some kind of frankly crazy statement. Is an American tank school a Christie tank, or what? And the French - T-18?
        1. Outsider V.
          Outsider V. 17 July 2018 14: 49
          0
          Then the English school will have to be mentioned - T-26, T-27. And German - T-50.
      2. Vladimir Ter-Odiyants
        Vladimir Ter-Odiyants 16 July 2018 15: 50
        0
        Quote: Royalist
        . And now the paddling pool with his Lecler "got lost"

        Very not a bad tank! That's just the price, the tower makes.
      3. Viktor77
        Viktor77 2 September 2018 09: 59
        0
        The Soviet school is the experience of the entire Great Patriotic War. No Americans and frogmen could ever dream of.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 15 July 2018 08: 11
    13
    Very beautiful, harmoniously folded machine, a masterpiece of tank design!
  3. beeper
    beeper 15 July 2018 08: 50
    +5
    In the second (top) picture in the Article, "illustrating the NATO 105mm taste", because the M-48 tank, armed with a 90mm M41 gun, or not smile ?!
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 10: 02
      +5
      Quote: pishchak
      because the M-48 tank, armed with a 90mm cannon

      Yes, the T-shaped muzzle brake is very characteristic.
  4. beeper
    beeper 15 July 2018 09: 35
    14
    hi Dear Article Author, a gunner in Soviet tanks is located in the LEFT tower, and the T-62 is no exception!
    Due to the long and bulky 115mm "artillery", the rate of fire, from the spot, from the T-62 gun was about 4 rounds per minute.
    1. speelforce
      speelforce 15 July 2018 10: 54
      14
      C'mon) Everything depends on the loader and the ejection machine is very slow. In 84 in Poland, on a directrix in 16 seconds, three shots were fired at the target. No one went on vacation)) There, if you wind the antennae on the tray with a wire, then the machine does not work, but pick up the sleeve and hang it in the tank rack, and charge a regular one from there faster than the same with the machine.
      1. svp67
        svp67 15 July 2018 11: 45
        +7
        Quote: speelforce
        In 84 in Poland, on a directrix in 16 seconds, three shots were fired at the target.

        Well, it’s you who used the top of the tank rack, but if you fired on further, could you withstand such a rate of fire?
        1. speelforce
          speelforce 15 July 2018 14: 31
          +8
          Seconds of 40 loader would still be enough) And then, for any move would have to - and that would rest. At the same time, shells from the turret tower turret fired. As the loaders themselves said, the hardest thing is with an extra barrel - 14,5 mm - you need to use a doselik there and you can’t see a damn thing, but the regular one flies in.)
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 12: 58
        12
        Quote: speelforce
        and grab the sleeve and hang it in the tank rack, and charge from there the standard one goes faster than the same with a gun.

        Your statements offend black rights activists on Abrams.
      3. AlexVas44
        AlexVas44 15 July 2018 14: 12
        +5
        Quote: speelforce
        ... if you wind the antennae on the tray with a wire, then the machine does not work ...

        good good good
    2. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 15 July 2018 11: 53
      +2
      Quote: pishchak
      squeaker Today, 09:35 New
      hi Dear Article Author, a gunner in Soviet tanks is located in the LEFT tower, and the T-62 is no exception!

      Judging by the photo of the breech of the gun, on this sample tank loading was on the right.
      1. beeper
        beeper 15 July 2018 12: 53
        19
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        Quote: pishchak
        squeaker Today, 09:35 New
        hi Dear Article Author, a gunner in Soviet tanks is located in the LEFT tower, and the T-62 is no exception!

        Judging by the photo of the breech of the gun, on this sample tank loading was on the right.

        hi Comrade Captain Pushkin, do you carefully read the texts of the Articles and comments that you comment on ?! smile
        In the Article, the following was said: "In the fighting compartment was the tank commander (left rear in the tower), gunner (front RIGHT in the tower) and loading (rear right in the tower)."
        I don’t need to “judge by the photo” where anyone is from the T-62 crew, since I have filled a lot of bumps and bruises in it (and the cut, in youth, about the “curb” of the sixty-two fenders, now my elbow joint is all more often and unbearably "whines on the weather" request ) smile !
        The T-55 and T-62 tanks were my "first tanks" that taught me how to shoot and drive them, and even many years later, wake me up at night on any issue about them, I would not open my eyes and completely "without regaining consciousness "would drum the correct answer and, if you blindfolded me on any of these machines," blindly "would carry out all repairs and actions to bring these types of tanks into an operational state, especially on the T-55! yes
        "Everyone Knows a Gunner's Place!" yes smile
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 15 July 2018 13: 21
          +1
          Quote: pishchak
          In the Article, the following was said: "In the fighting compartment was the tank commander (left rear in the tower), gunner (front RIGHT in the tower) and loading (rear right in the tower)."

          You say you served on t-55-62, and claim that the gunner is sitting ON RIGHT from the gun? Or am I misunderstood something?
          The commander and the gunner are sitting next to each other (the commander above) - LEFT from the gun.
          Charger, in splendid isolation - to the RIGHT from the gun.
          For Abrams, on the contrary (the commander with the gunner is on the right, the loader is on the left of the gun).
          1. beeper
            beeper 15 July 2018 13: 37
            +6
            hi Comrade Bad_gr, you are quite self-critical ("Or did I misunderstand something?") And this inspires optimism! yes
            Of course, you “misunderstood something,” but I believe that once again carefully reading even the quote you quoted from my answer to Captain Pushkin (in which I just quoted the article under discussion and paid his inattentive attention to the word RIGHT, which he did not notice in Hurry reading the article and my comment above smile ), you’ll understand correctly now, especially if you also look, even out of the corner of your eye, a little higher, at the beginning of our “discussion thread”! yes
            PS This is how it turns out, I probably write a lot of buccaff and completely disregard “clip thinking”, functional dyslexia, the current generation ... it turns out that I’m not a “brother” for brevity, it’s completely untalented ?! request
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 15 July 2018 13: 45
              +1
              Sorry, I misunderstood. I read as the material arrives, where hours pass between the comments, and I don’t reread the previous ones several times. Therefore, my comments often go on a specific single statement.
            2. Qazaq 1974
              Qazaq 1974 16 July 2018 15: 20
              +5
              A tank commander with long knees could hit the gunner’s ears (headset) in case the gunner slows down! ))) Or having found the target with your hand to control the gunner’s head like a joystick, well, that one, respectively, with the guidance panel! ))))
              It’s more terrible to be a loader (in the cadet years everyone had to go), you ride like a bus, (sometimes the seat is folded up sometimes) and it’s more convenient to "stand at the start" on the command "charge" two pairs of wild eyes (commander and gunner) with wild howling through roar of the engine "Faster !!!" you start frantically choosing the type of projectile, pull it out of the tank rack (breaking your nails), pull it with your left hand as far back as you can and grab the projectile with your right hand around the waist and here !!!!! Horror!!!!! you forgot to press the button "lock the gun on the loading angle" (full !!! The wild howl of the commander and the loader rises like a siren) manages to move with the shell in his teeth, press the lock and put the front of the shell in the tray and vigorously push the shell into the womb of the cannon with bent phalanges of your fingers, you can also lose them when locking a wedge-gate weighing more than 60 kg !!! and you think everything, shot back but then the howl of the commander and gunner is even louder !!! - Disconnect the lock ..uka !!! sharply turn off and grab the handrails - right now a shot will strike and everything repeats twice and then exhale the current! you think about sitting and watching, etc. Cotton tunic at least squeeze !!! )))) but we were 18 years old ... komuto - 17 ......
              1. Looking for
                Looking for 16 July 2018 21: 45
                -1
                And to whom was it 17?
                1. Talgat 148
                  Talgat 148 16 July 2018 21: 52
                  +1
                  Cadet 1-year student after school.
    3. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 15 July 2018 13: 45
      +5
      And who told you that during the battle you constantly need "machine gun loading of the gun", it all depends on c. oil. For me, training in 5 shots was the norm, sometimes even the sixth managed to be thrown out of the machine gun as well. And then a regular shot is not just like that. Here the powder gases knock out a tear and the sound is also involved. The hood works, but you still have time to slurp. Of course, such events were piecewise, about 2-3, maximum 4-5, for the training period for the drill unit. At the training ground, the crews of the training machines came off more. Mostly fired liner (23 mm from the "Shilka") and a machine gun. The armor of the top of the tower was small, once I saw how, with a swipe of a gun on an obstacle on the move, flipped a piece of armor up to about 10 cm across, through a stopper that went to the tower, so there are 25-30 millimeters, not more. In general, the T-62 is a good workhorse of war, designed for 20 minutes of intense combat, as commanders explained to us ..
  5. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 15 July 2018 09: 36
    +3
    By that time, it was no secret that our 100-mm cannon of the T-55 tank did not penetrate the frontal armor of the American M48 Patton III tank.

    Roman, where did the information for such a powerful statement come from? In his confirmation, I would like to see a summary table of the armor penetration of the D-10T2S guns with 53-ubr-412 shells of various modifications, 3ubm8 / 19/20, and 3BK5 / 5M, at different firing ranges compared to the armor of the M48 tank.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 10: 18
      +3
      Quote: Rakti-Kali
      In his confirmation, I would like to see a summary table of the armor penetration of the D-10T2S guns with 53-ubr-412 shells of various modifications, 3ubm8 / 19/20, and 3BK5 / 5M, at different firing ranges compared to the armor of the M48 tank.

      I am not Roman, but it is not so difficult.
      The most advanced BB, a 100-mm shot 53-UBR-412D with an armor-piercing tracing sharp-headed projectile 53-BR-412D of 1953, I tried from 1500 meters 170 mm normal. The forehead of the M48 tower is 178 mm, the hull is above 200 and at a large angle. That is, the T-55 hit the M48 in the tower with a range of about a kilometer, in the upper part of the hull did not hit at any range.
      ZBK5 projectile 63rd year, 3BM8 - 66th year, at the time of adoption of the T-62 in service are not interesting.
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 15 July 2018 11: 02
        +5
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The most advanced BB, 100-mm shot 53-UBR-412D with an armor-piercing tracing pointed-headed projectile 53-BR-412D of 1953, tried from 1500 meters 170 mm normal

        You forgot to add a rolled homogeneous armor. Both the turret and the M 48 hull are cast, so their resistance to fairly heavy 100mm shells is reduced compared to rolled armor.
        So the 53-BR-412D from D-10T2S could quite confidently penetrate that 178 mm the forehead of the tower, that 110 mm vlad, that 102 mm nld tank M 48 from a distance of 1500 m.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        ZBK5 projectile 63rd year, 3BM8 - 66th year, at the time of adoption of the T-62 in service are not interesting.

        3BC5 projectile of 1961. Both sub-caliber and non-rotating cumulative shells for the 100 mm gun were just a response to the appearance of the L7 and M60, which allowed the T 55 tanks to effectively resist them at all real combat distances. And the T-62 should have already ensured a qualitative superiority over the enemy, punching its tanks from distances at which they themselves would have remained completely invulnerable.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 13: 37
          +1
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          You forgot to add

          I did not forget. At Solyankin, armor penetration is given without specifying the type of armor. But if you have results on cast and rolled, it is appropriate to lay them out.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          53-BR-412D from D-10T2S could quite confidently penetrate that 178 mm of the tower’s forehead

          Nobody argues with this. The question is, from what distance.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          that 110 mm wld

          If you lift it with a crane.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          that 102 mm NLD of the M 48 tank from a distance of 1500 m.

          If you lift the crane M48.
          53-BR-412D lost 25% of armor penetration at an angle of armor of 30 degrees relative to armor penetration in the normal direction. And no, the thickness of the armor should be taken in the direction of the projectile, and not as convenient.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          3BC5 projectile 1961

          According to the work of the Pavlovs, to which Wikipedia refers. The same year is indicated in the 3rd volume of Solyankin, for example. But here, for example
          http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=444&am
          p; am
          p; p = 29
          This issue is discussed in more detail.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          And the T-62 should have already ensured a qualitative superiority over the enemy, punching its tanks from distances at which they themselves would have remained completely invulnerable.

          The USSR Ministry of Defense had a different opinion.
          So, for example, in the 1964 GKOT certificate “Comparison of the armor protection level of foreign and domestic tanks” it was noted: “The armor protection level of the M60 tank approximately corresponds to the armor protection of the domestic T-62 medium tank. At the same time, the projectile resistance of the frontal part of the M60 body is higher than that of the T-62, and the towers are slightly lower than the T-62. The M60 tank is hit by submunitions of the U-5TS cannon of the T-62 domestic tank at a range of 900–2000 m (900 m - hull, 2000 m - turret). Almost at the same battle distances, the frontal armor of the T-62 tank can be hit by shells of the 105-mm gun of the M60 tank. Tank M60 does not have anti-cumulative protection and, therefore, is affected by the cumulative shells of the U-5TS cannon of the T-62 tank at a direct-fire range "

          “T-62. The killer of the Centurions and the Olyphant »
          In parentheses, I note that the discussion here is probably about 3UBM5 with an armor-piercing projectile 3BM6, which theoretically pierced as much as 240 mm for 3 km.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 15 July 2018 15: 53
            +3
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            I did not forget. At Solyankin, armor penetration is given without specifying the type of armor. But if you have results on cast and rolled, it is appropriate to lay them out.

            After (and already during) the Second World War almost all shots for armor penetration were carried out on rolled armor.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Nobody argues with this. The question is, from what distance

            The distance has been indicated. At the same time, the M90 projectile at this distance did not penetrate the forehead of the T48 / 54 from the words "savsem" and "uasche".
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            If you lift it with a crane.

            Quote: Cherry Nine
            If you lift the crane M48.
            53-BR-412D lost 25% of armor penetration at an angle of armor of 30 degrees relative to armor penetration in the normal direction. And no, the thickness of the armor should be taken in the direction of the projectile, and not as convenient.

            Ha ha ha ... sharp, overseas ...
            But seriously, back in 1944, according to a memorandum to Satel from Tolochkov and Volosatov, an old shell without an armor-piercing tip that didn’t "bite" and normalize well, a frontal sheet confidently made its way into the rubble of a shot D-10 " Panthers "from a distance of 1500 meters. And this is still an excellent “cemented” German armor 85 mm thick at an angle of 55 degrees. As for the armor of American tanks, if the rolled manganese-molybdenum armor from the beginning of the 50s almost reached the strength characteristics of a comparable thickness of German armor, slightly inferior in hardness but also slightly superior in viscosity, then cast armor in all characteristics was inferior even Soviet governing of the sample of 42 years.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The USSR Ministry of Defense had a different opinion

            Well, desires do not always coincide with opportunities. Although, Baryatinsky is another source ...
            1. Royalist
              Royalist 15 July 2018 19: 32
              +1
              Rakti- kali “Although the Baryatensky is still that historian” - “depending on what order to count”; / (old children's joke), but in this case it all depends on who reads and with whom he compares.
              For example, for a child and Murzilka a cool magazine
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 21: 16
              +1
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              After (and already during) the Second World War almost all shots for armor penetration were carried out on rolled armor.

              During WWII, yes, in the 60s, no.
              Again. Do you have other data?
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              The distance has been indicated.

              I have? 1000+ meters. You seem to be about to indicate a different distance, but decided to limit yourself to meaningful statements.
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              At the same time, the 90 mm M48 shell at this distance in the forehead T54 / 55

              This is about which projectile is it? About the M332 (T67)?
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              according to the memorandum to Satel from Tolochkov and Volosatov

              Are you talking about it?
              http://www.battlefield.ru/testings-100mm-122mm.ht
              ml
              Yes, a very interesting document of the era. Who it is, but it leads me to think that not those pests were shot by Lavrenty Palych, oh, not those.
              Try to find the data of the shelling, on the basis of which Tolochkov and Volosatov made their sensational statements, which so successfully coincided with the position of Satel in arming new heavy tanks. If done - a piece of paper without a signature and number. It was laid out, it seems, by Svirin, but I did not see his comments on this text.
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              that cast armor in all respects was inferior even to the Soviet govolnolya model of 42 years.

              Seriously? Your point of view does not coincide with the point of view of the USSR Ministry of Defense.
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              Although, Baryatinsky is another source ...

              Do you blame him for having invented the MO document or what?
              1. Rakti-kali
                Rakti-kali 15 July 2018 23: 07
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                During WWII, yes, in the 60s, no.
                Again. Do you have other data?

                And you? Can you provide a document where it will be unequivocally indicated that armor-piercing shootings are carried out only on cast armor and not otherwise?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                I have? 1000+ meters. You seem to be about to indicate a different distance, but decided to limit yourself to meaningful statements.

                If it seems - get baptized. I indicated the distance - up to 1500m.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                This is about which projectile is it? About M332

                No, I'm talking about the old M82 and the regular M318.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Who it is, but it leads me to think that not those pests were shot by Lavrenty Palych, oh, not those.

                Dododo ...
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Seriously? Your point of view does not coincide with the point of view of the USSR Ministry of Defense.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Do you blame him for having invented the MO document or what?

                And what, in 1964, the M 60 was already captured and shot at the firing range, and shelling was fired from its gun at T54 / 55/62?
                I now know about the study in the USSR of the M60A1 tank in 1972.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 16 July 2018 07: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Can you provide a document where it will be unequivocally indicated that armor penetration shootings are carried out only on cast armor and not otherwise?

                  I have to find a document confirming your statements, are you sure?
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  I indicated the distance - up to 1500m.

                  Are you trying to seize these 500 meters from me? Well, OK.
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  No, I'm talking about the old M82 and the regular M318

                  To which tank were they full-time?

                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Dododo

                  Did you find out what shooting this note was written for?
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  And what, in 1964, the M 60 was already captured

                  No, of course. Accordingly, your statements about the insufficiency of booking M48 are confirmed by what?
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  I now know about the study in the USSR of the M60A1 tank in 1972.

                  I do not know what year it was released, but you remembered it by the way. What did they write about a 100mm gun, wouldn't it make it difficult to clarify?
                  1. Rakti-kali
                    Rakti-kali 16 July 2018 09: 59
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I have to find a document confirming your statements, are you sure?

                    Dear, you cho, beguiled the shores !? It is you who stated that the shooting for armor penetration was carried out in the USSR not on rolled armor, and you have to prove it, demagogue of horseradish.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Are you trying to seize these 500 meters from me? Well, OK.

                    Screw your FSB, I like the drum that you thought of yourself there.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    To which tank were they full-time?

                    Now look at the ammunition that is not only "M41 only", or for you the secret is that the M41 could fully use the entire range of ammunition from previous models, while it was the M82 and M318 that were standard, and the M332 had certain shooting restrictions.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Did you find out what shooting this note was written for?

                    But what, in fact, has nothing to say to you that you "dig to the pillar"?
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    No, of course. Accordingly, your statements about the insufficiency of booking M48 are confirmed by what?

                    What? In the garden of elderberry, and in Kiev uncle? What did you want to say? Where did I say about insufficient booking M48?
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I do not know what year it was released, but you remembered it by the way. What did they write about a 100mm gun, wouldn't it make it difficult to clarify?

                    What for? The conversation was about Roman’s statement that the D-10T shells “couldn’t penetrate the M48 armor”, you already dragged everything else to at least somehow dodge.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 16 July 2018 20: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      It is you who stated that the shooting for armor penetration was carried out in the USSR not on rolled armor, and you have to prove it, demagogue of horseradish.

                      Accurate in terms. There is a button "quote", you can use it.
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      You forgot to add "rolled homogeneous armor"

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      I did not forget. At Solyankin, armor penetration is given without specifying the type of armor. But if you have results on cast and rolled, it is appropriate to lay them out.

                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      After (and already during) the Second World War almost all shots for armor penetration were carried out on rolled armor.

                      In terms of armor penetration, I confined myself to the first authorized (that is, not an "expert under the name XXX") source. He does not give the type of reservation, moreover, I will not be surprised if the data are calculated, not polygon. According to the documents of the 60s, the term "equally strong monolithic armor" can be found, but this is the T-64 era, because RMB is compared with combined. Accordingly, I do not know:
                      1. What type of reservation does this data apply to.
                      2. How does the armor of the M48 tower relate to the reference.
                      I pointed it out directly.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      But if you have results on cast and rolled, it is appropriate to lay them out.

                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      What for? The conversation was about Roman’s statement that the D-10T shells “couldn’t penetrate the M48 armor”

                      There are various documents on this subject. For example, this is found:
                      2. Domestic 100-mm and 122-mm guns are an effective means of combating the American M-48 tank, and of the two types of 100-mm and armor-piercing shells (blunt-headed and pointed-headed with armor-piercing tip), the most effective is the blunt-headed shell.
                      However, neither a 100-mm blunt-headed projectile when firing from a cannon with an initial speed of 895 m / s, nor a 122-mm blunt-headed projectile when firing from a gun with an initial speed of 781-800 m / s provide penetration of the upper frontal part of the M-48 tank.
                      For breaking through this part of the hull at a heading angle of 0 ° with blunt-headed projectiles, the impact speed of a 100-mm projectile should be at least 940 m / s, and a 122-mm projectile should be at least 870 m / s

                      http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1958_02_m48.htm
                      This is directly related to your thesis.
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      Where did I say about the insufficient booking M48?

                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      So the 53-BR-412D from D-10T2S could quite confidently penetrate that 178 mm the forehead of the tower, that 110 mm vlad, that 102 mm nld tank M 48 from a distance of 1500 m.

                      and my comment that
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Your point of view does not coincide with the point of view of the USSR Ministry of Defense.

                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      But what, in fact, has nothing to say to you that you "dig to the pillar"?

                      You introduced a document into our conversation, according to which the BS-3 pierces 44, it seems, Panthera’s millimeters from 140 km with its miracle 1,5th year. On this basis, you concluded that the forehead of M48, which is 1,5 times thicker and much more inclined, it will pierce without question. I, perhaps quite sharply, indicated that this document is surprising to me, because its data are very much at odds with the calculated ones.
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      And now look at the ammunition that is not only "M41 only", or for you the secret is that the M41 could fully use the entire range of ammunition from previous models

                      Not a secret. However, which of the shells could be the "main" on the European theater of operations in the middle, especially the end of the 50s? Or, reformulating the question, is there any information about the deficit of M332?

                      I summarize. You have stated the following:
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      the caliber and non-rotating cumulative shells for the 100 mm gun were just a response to the appearance of the L7 and M60, which allowed the T 55 tanks to effectively resist them at all real combat distances. And the T-62 should have already ensured a qualitative superiority over the enemy, punching its tanks from distances at which they themselves would have remained completely invulnerable.

                      At the same time, according to the assessment of the Ministry of Defense, which Boryatinsky cites, and the estimated armor penetration, and the assessment of the M48 reservation, the picture is exactly the opposite: this tank of the 52nd model created serious problems for both the T-54 and even the T-10. These problems could only be fixed with the advent of new shells and smoothbore guns in the mid-60s - 10 years later, and "to ensure qualitative superiority over the enemy, punching his tanks from distances at which they themselves would remain completely invulnerable" - by the 70s, T -64A.
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 15 July 2018 09: 56
    +3
    Yes, the T-62 is perhaps no less famous than the T-55 ... and it is, in fact, the "younger brother" of the T-55 ... Indeed, the T-62 is still used outside of Russia .. .there is also a modification of the T-62AM with the 125-mm gun ... There is even infa that the T-62 were sent to the Armed Forces in the Donbass in some quantity as "training" .... (but I have a reliable confirmation of this fact not...)
  7. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 10: 00
    +5
    With the new gun, the M60 generally began to have such an advantage that it caused serious concern for everyone in the Union.

    It would be nice to tell this juicy story in more detail.
    Meanwhile, the scandal that erupted in the Ministry of Defense in early January 1961 put an end to all delays with “Object 166”. The fact is that as far back as 1958, the Centurion British tanks were armed with a 105-mm rifled L7 gun, which had a very long barrel of 62 calibers and a huge pressure in the barrel channel at that time - 5500 kg / cm2. The sub-caliber 105-mm shell had an initial velocity of 1470 m / s and in armor penetration was significantly superior to the shells of Soviet 100-mm guns. And all would be fine - after all, the Centurion was produced in relatively small quantities, but in 1960 the United States began mass production of the main tank M60, also armed with a 105-mm cannon. In Germany and France, this gun was planned to be installed on promising Leopard and AMX-30 tanks. In the UK, they were planning to install a 120 mm caliber gun in the projected “Chieftain” tank. When the commander of the ground forces Marshal V.I. Chuikov found out about this, he became furious. Calling the commander of the tank forces, Marshal P.P. Poluboyarov and other leaders of the GBTU, the hero of the Battle of Stalingrad asked if the Soviet Army had anything that could be opposed to the M60 tank. He was told that in Nizhny Tagil there is a tank with a 115-mm cannon, but it has drawbacks, for example, the balance bar broke during testing. Then V. I. Chuikov started shouting: “Why are you fooling my head with some balancers? I’m even a pig, but put this gun! ” This was followed by a tirade that was very characteristic of Chuikov, and consisted entirely of profanity.

    Baryatinsky. T-62. The killer of the Centurions and Olyphant
  8. vindigo
    vindigo 15 July 2018 10: 30
    +2
    I read that there were complaints of insufficient angles of vertical and horizontal aiming.
  9. Cat
    Cat 15 July 2018 10: 52
    +2
    If the memory on the M-48 doesn’t fail me, since the modification of the M-48A3 they have already put a 105mm rifled gun. A5 was definitely already with her!
    However, the Chinese clones T-62 (type-69) were also armed with an English gun L7 (105 mm).
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 15 July 2018 11: 31
      +3
      Quote: Kotischa
      If the memory on the M-48 doesn’t fail me, starting with the modification of the M-48A3, they already put a 105mm rifled gun

      Changes, A3 is a diesel engine. The gun is the A5, and this is the middle of the 70s. This is about the series. In the 60s, 105mm was set by Jews, including on the A3, but this was not the case in Europe.
  10. staviator
    staviator 15 July 2018 11: 20
    +2
    The original use of air suspension with NUR good
    1. VictorZhivilov
      VictorZhivilov 15 July 2018 21: 54
      +1
      Yes, the noble "Calliope". As the popular wisdom says, “a rumor on inventions of cunning”. lol
      http://military-photo.com/ussr/afv/ifv/bmp-1/1725
      3-photo.html
      http://military-photo.com/ussr/afv/ifv/bmp-1/1725
      5-photo.html
      PS
      There was still such a "Katyusha". smile
      http://military-photo.com/unsorted/17254-photo.ht
      ml
  11. tank66
    tank66 15 July 2018 11: 23
    10
    Thank you. I’ll reflex it a bit. My home was 2 years old .... According to the pictures inside the interior, I can see the training machine - the seats are wiped, but it doesn’t smell like shells, and it’s as if they never opened the bolt / the gun wasn’t loaded / ... And about the gun / she is not to blame - these are stupid people / I will tell the following. In USSR manuals, I think more than a dozen cadets died due to the lack of "protection against the fool." When the gun is at the loading angle / pulled up into the sky / - between the breech and the "ceiling" of the tower - relatively speaking, see 70 free space. Here is the gun loaded. A cadet / or a young instructor / -tupler is stupid, or a loader is stupid and they climb to each other to show something. In a wound up tank ... A cannon on a drum is the strength of a young head in a helmet, the barrel is lowered, in accordance with the position of the gunner's console. Breech up. Crunch.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 15 July 2018 15: 00
      +6
      Quote: tank66
      Thank you. I’ll reflex it a bit. My home was 2 years old .... According to the pictures inside the interior, I can see the training machine - the seats are wiped, but it doesn’t smell like shells, and it’s as if they never opened the bolt / the gun wasn’t loaded / ... And about the gun / she is not to blame - these are stupid people / I will tell the following. In USSR manuals, I think more than a dozen cadets died due to the lack of "protection against the fool." When the gun is at the loading angle / pulled up into the sky / - between the breech and the "ceiling" of the tower - relatively speaking, see 70 free space. Here is the gun loaded. A cadet / or a young instructor / -tupler is stupid, or a loader is stupid and they climb to each other to show something. In a wound up tank ... A cannon on a drum is the strength of a young head in a helmet, the barrel is lowered, in accordance with the position of the gunner's console. Breech up. Crunch.

      But for those dull, there was a military fence. So that the gunner dies, he doesn’t hear, and the loaders periodically fell by stupidity, yeah. As I remember right now, I clicked the lock and snuggled up to the tower, before the shot you would tear the horseradish laughing drinks
  12. Andrey Sukharev
    Andrey Sukharev 15 July 2018 11: 32
    +1
    Is 62 produced by Czechs? It seems that they only did 55 and 72 ...
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 15 July 2018 17: 15
      +6
      Quote: Andrey Sukharev
      Is 62 produced by Czechs? It seems that they only did 55 and 72 ...

      And FIG knows them! Some sources say that the T-62 was produced in Czechoslovakia from 1975 to 1978. for export (even data is given: how many and to which countries ...), and in some it is alleged that there was no production of T-62 ... but there was production of T-55 and T-72. Indirect evidence of this assertion can be such facts that the “Czechoslovak” modifications of the T-55 and T-72 are known, but the T-62 are not known ... Also, there was data on the composition of the armored units of Czechoslovakia in the 70 years, so there wasn’t mentions of the T-62 .....
    2. marat2016
      marat2016 15 July 2018 19: 00
      +2
      Yes, T-62 wasn’t released in Czechoslovakia.
  13. svp67
    svp67 15 July 2018 11: 49
    +6
    The gun was developed smooth-bore, and here's why: cumulative shells have more penetrating ability, if they are not given torque.
    But in general, the main goal was to get the highest possible speed for a projectile
    Contrary to many concerns, the accuracy of the new gun was at the level of the best tank rifled artillery systems of the time.
    Nevertheless, the 100-mm TP more “heaps” shells per 1000 meters
    In the fighting compartment there was a tank commander (left behind in the tower), a gunner (front right to the tower) and loader (rear right in the tower).
    No, the gunner with the commander was on the left in the fighting compartment and they used one hatch for landing and disembarking, by the way, if necessary, he could also use the mech-water.
  14. Usher
    Usher 15 July 2018 11: 50
    0
    A typo, the gunner is front left, not right.
  15. Royalist
    Royalist 15 July 2018 18: 56
    +3
    Quote: speelforce
    C'mon) Everything depends on the loader and the ejection machine is very slow. In 84 in Poland, on a directrix in 16 seconds, three shots were fired at the target. No one went on vacation)) There, if you wind the antennae on the tray with a wire, then the machine does not work, but pick up the sleeve and hang it in the tank rack, and charge a regular one from there faster than the same with the machine.

    Nobody has yet canceled the national wit
  16. Sergey824
    Sergey824 15 July 2018 19: 34
    +1
    "The tank was equipped with a radiation protection system, which could operate both in automatic and semi-automatic mode. Using a supercharger-separator, excessive pressure was created inside the tank, which did not allow poisonous substances to enter the machine in case of its depressurization."
    There is one “but”, the supercharger does not clean from toxic substances, but from radioactive dust. Due to the high revolutions of the fan, the dust was delayed and removed through a slot in the armor under the supercharger.
  17. Royalist
    Royalist 15 July 2018 19: 45
    +2
    I don’t know how anyone, but I with great pleasure read the comments of such comrades as: "Pishchak", "Tank" and so on. D. Correspondent all those who, as they say, "experienced in their own way." Not one technology historian will be able to convey what a person personally tried. For example, I can read at least a million sources, but if I didn’t control the tank, I can’t appreciate
  18. aloleggry
    aloleggry 15 July 2018 22: 41
    +3

    62 OTB 103 VDD year approximately 1987, with me this tank was still intact. The picture is clearly after the mine grabbed. The screens are ripped off, the shelf is bent. In this modification since 85 years. Additional armor, rubber screens on rinks. From mine - a laser range finder (used), a ballistic calculator (not needed for nothing). The gunner sits on the port side. Almost in a straight line between the mechanic and the commander. “Camping” is a good wind tunnel.
  19. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 15 July 2018 23: 50
    +1
    Thank you traditionally for the article to the authors, everything is fine, especially the photos from the inside of the combat vehicle. But there are two questions:
    1). Where all the same these tanks were successfully used, if it didn’t work out very well on Damansky, and so-so in Afghanistan, and even in the Arab-Israeli wars they got, one might say, in full - and they knocked out and rushed by the hundreds ... Maybe still there was a conceptual problem, why were the opponents of this machine more successful?

    2). In my opinion, an unprofessional one sees an extremely narrow and low, very uncomfortable car crew, while being incredibly hot, especially in the climates of the Middle East and Central Asia ...
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 16 July 2018 10: 15
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      in Damansky

      one platoon of tanks operated without infantry cover, on difficult terrain that the crews did not know.
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      and in Afghanistan

      also acted not in their role (anti-tank tanks), but as a reinforcement of roadblocks or escorting columns against the partisans.
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      and in the Arab-Israeli wars

      All claims against the Arabs.
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      Maybe there was still a conceptual problem

      In cases 1 and 2 of the second case, yes, since the tanks were used either illiterate or for other purposes.
      in 3 cases ... no, well, are you serious !? And when the same Jordanians on the M-48 lule received from the same M48 and Sherman, is this because the Sherman is cooler than the M48?
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      extremely narrow and low, very inconvenient for the crew car, while incredibly hot

      While there were no reliable laser rangefinders and digital SLAs, small dimensions were a positive factor. For the crew, the T62 is quite convenient and easy to operate. And all the tanks of that time are hot, because no one had air conditioners.
    2. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 17 July 2018 11: 16
      0
      Judging by the Arab-Israeli wars, then to determine the effectiveness of the tank from them is not correct. There, the human factor played a crucial role. There is, for example, a column, prayer time, all of the cars with rugs and communicate with Allah. And the Israelis are like manna from heaven, the turntables are right there. Wham-bang and there is no column. The Egyptians with claims that they were not sent such tanks, to which they sent their tankers from the Union to replace their crews, and then they replayed at the top and sent back. Not allowed to turn around. As for the microclimate inside the tower, yes, it was hot, albeit in the middle of Europe. In winter, when the engine is running, it’s normal, and let's say in an ambush, it starts to get a chill. I was charging from the very beginning of the service and went to the same reserve, although the replaceability in our crew was complete, I went to the gunner quite often. The range has its own specifics of service. They shot and drove more than in the combat unit.
  20. bk0010
    bk0010 16 July 2018 12: 45
    0
    So how was the T-62 different from the T-55?
    1) New gun
    2) A new tower for a new gun
    3) New stabilizer for a new gun
    4) Removed the machine gun course
    5) Added a night vision device with a headlight
    And it's all? Did the chassis remain old?
  21. Qazaq 1974
    Qazaq 1974 16 July 2018 15: 23
    +3
    A tank commander with long knees could hit the gunner’s ears (headset) in case the gunner slows down! ))) Or having found the target with your hand to control the gunner’s head like a joystick, well, that one, respectively, with the guidance panel! ))))
    It’s more terrible to be a loader (in the cadet years everyone had to go), you ride like a bus, (sometimes the seat is folded up sometimes) and it’s more convenient to "stand at the start" on the command "charge" two pairs of wild eyes (commander and gunner) with wild howling through roar of the engine "Faster !!!" you start frantically choosing the type of projectile, pull it out of the tank rack (breaking your nails), pull it with your left hand as far back as you can and grab the projectile with your right hand around the waist and here !!!!! Horror!!!!! you forgot to press the button "lock the gun on the loading angle" (full !!! The wild howl of the commander and the loader rises like a siren) manages to move with the shell in his teeth, press the lock and put the front of the shell in the tray and vigorously push the shell into the womb of the cannon with bent phalanges of your fingers, you can also lose them when locking a wedge-gate weighing more than 60 kg !!! and you think everything, shot back but then the howl of the commander and gunner is even louder !!! - Disconnect the lock ..uka !!! sharply turn off and grab the handrails - right now a shot will strike and everything repeats twice and then exhale the current! you think about sitting and watching, etc. Cotton tunic at least squeeze !!! )))) but we were 18 years old ... komuto - 17 ......
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 17 July 2018 08: 08
      +1
      Quote: Qazaq 1974
      - Disconnect the lock ..uka !!! sharply turn off and grab the handrails - right now a shot will strike and everything repeats twice and then exhale the current! you think about sitting and watching, etc. Cotton tunic at least squeeze !!! )))) but we were 18 years old ... someone - 17 ......

      Memoirs of "personally involved" are always informative and pleasant to read laughing