Off the top of my head, the main advancement the T-62 had over the T-54/55 was the 115mm gun, even though it only appears to have a minor improvement in other fields. The T-55 saw a good number of upgrades and modernizations that kept it competitive with the T-62, even being introduced simultaneously. All of the effort put into the replacement seems like a waste with such little ammunition development that we saw for the D-10 gun, being a stark contrast to the life squeezed out of the L7/M68. As far as I know, Soviet designs like the ~1978 3BM25 round still possessed short penetrators whereas the M735 had a much longer (but weird shaped) one. I will admit I don't know much about APFSDS development, so there could be a legitimate reason to use short penetrators, as well as the fact I could be totally wrong about the 3BM25.
>TL;DR: Was the T-62 a waste when the USSR could've made better 100mm ammo?
Bonus question: Is this analogous to the M48 vs M60?
I remember one anon posting a source that stated the only reason the gun went up from 100mm to 115mm was because some Soviet general autistically insisted on a bigger caliber. Wasn't really better technically, but politically it was a requirement unless the designers wanted to get gulag'd.
>Was the T-62 a waste when the USSR could've made better 100mm ammo?
the T-62 can be considered a bad deal for export buyers, since it was marginally better than the T-55 for much more cost
but the T-62 was probably worth it for the soviet union, since they would have to fight NATO armor in heavy concentration and so would want every advantage they could get
and the T-62 offered more upgrade potential than the T-55, while sabot rounds eventually put the T-55 on the same footing as the T-62s early 115mm steel sabot rounds, the later T-62 rounds leave even the best 100mm rounds in the dust
the T-62 also had more modern fire-control, like a 2-plane stabilizer and crude nightvision, while these could be installed, and eventually did get installed, on T-55s it made more sense to put prioritize the more effective tanks first
>Is this analogous to the M48 vs M60?
the T-62 is broadly comparable to the M60A1
as they both served as the main battle tank of their respective countries in roughly the same span of time and with comparable specifications
with the M60A1 entering service in 1962 and the T-62 in 1961
both also featured the best
Thanks anon 🙂
It's a testament to the strength of the T-44/T-54/T-55 family that it could receive a new gun and a few other tidbits in the early 1960s and be perfectly competitive, even superior in some respects, to 2nd gen Western MBTs.
The 62 is basically a longer 54 hull with a bigger turret ring
the T-62 was a near-total overhaul that left very few interchangeable components with the T-55
the T-55 itself didnt really reach parity with the M60A1 until the T-55M in 1985
and by 1985, the M60A3 with thermal sight was in service and it was superior to both total modernizations of the T-55 and T-62
The Israelis thought the T-55 was a much more survivable vehicle than the M60, with a lower silhouette and not being filled with highly flammable hydraulic fluid.
the M60A1 did have a mechanical fire control system with rangefinders
and in the early 70s, it got a gun stabilizer and night vision
and in the late 70s, it got its own APFSDS round
the T-55 got jack and shit until the 70s, with the only major revision being the T-55A in the 60s, which added NBC protection and removed some unnecessary machine guns, and the addition of 100mm sub-caliber rounds
the T-55M finally gave it a ballistic computer, a range finder, a stabilizer, and IR nightvision all the way in the 80s, finally matching the 1970s-era M60A1
but this was when the M60A3 was in service with a digital FCS that allowed it to point and click moving targets, monolithic sabot rounds, and thermal sights
the last of which was something soviet tanks never got
Due to the flaws in the design of the T-72 it is a dead end in terms of tank development. Much like the Centurion which after 4-5 generations of development became the Markava-IV the T-62 eventually became the Songun ho V.
The T-62 was designed with a oversized turret ring that could take bigger guns and upgrades, the T-72 was not. The T-62 and it's variants will exist decades after the last T-72 is gone simply because thje T-72 was a bad design and the T-62 was not.
The T-62 is a good tank that was designed to be upgraded when it became obsolete, the T-72 or any other Soviet tank was not. The only decent cold war era tank that is worth a damn is the T-62 and it's variants. I would chose a North Korean T-62 variant over anything Russia had to offer.
>uch like the Centurion which after 4-5 generations of development became the Markava-IV
merkava shares very little with the centurion
and the parts they do share are mostly just them recycling existing tooling to speed up production
the merkava was a clean sheet design, made from the ground up, that just happened to incorporate some centurion parts like road wheels
but the merkava 4 has very little in common with even the merkava 1, much less the centurion
its about as related to the centurion as the centurion is to the Renault FT
Mervava I was based on a Centurion with a reversed drive train, they incrementally evolved it into the modern Merkava IV.
North Korea took a T-62 and turned it into the Song IV/216 by incrementally evolving it. It is the same philosopy. You take what you have and make it better. Centurion and T-62 were good tanks at the time, both the DPRK and Israel took what they had and improved on it.
Russia decided to take the worst turd (T-72) and do nothing useful with it for 50 years. Even Algeria managed to created a formidibale armored force with T-62s in the form of their BTR-62s, the T-72 is a fatally flawed venture compared to the T-62.
Evolution of design is important, chosing a design that can be evolved is even more important. The T-62 has proven it can still function and evolve, the T-72 has not.
>The only decent cold war era tank that is worth a damn is the T-62
What an I reading
>What an I reading
The truth.
In reguards to Soviet designs the only tank past the T-55 that was worth a damn is the T-62 because it is the only one whose design elements will last. When the last active T-72 on earth is nothing but scrap a T-62 based hull will be rolling of a factory line in North Korea.
What's wrong with the T-64
Smaller turret ring, leaves less real estate for future upgrades
What he said:
The T-62 was designed by real commies who wanted to make something that would last forever, everything else was typical politicking. T-64 was great but no one paid attention because of political infighting so you got the T-72 which was designed to be a temporary design but ended up being the standard.
You can do all sorts of neat things with T-62s, like put a armored turret ring, a BMP-2 turret and two ATGM launchers on 330 of them right before you lanch a war against NATO but instead of using them in combat you sell them to Algeria as well as 300 T-72s as well as the gear to make 300 BMPTs.....
Seriously, Russia upgraded 330 T-62s into BMPT-62s and sold Algeria enough parts and upgrades for 300 T-72 based BMPTs.....
Call me crazy but i think Russia should have waited until AFTER the war before they sold 630 heavy combat vehicals, especially since it drained all their T-62 parts and cost them 300 T-72s, the turrets from 330 BMP-2s and 1320 dual Kornet launchers not to mention about 5000 missiles...
A complete lack of on-the-spot guidance by Dear Leader.
>Due to the flaws in the design of the T-72 it is a dead end in terms of tank development. Much like the Centurion which after 4-5 generations of development became the Markava-IV the T-62 eventually became the Songun ho V.
The merk is not just an upgraded centurion, that would be like the olifant or some shit. Its a new design philosophy entirely.
>The T-62 was designed with a oversized turret ring that could take bigger guns and upgrades, the T-72 was not. The T-62 and it's variants will exist decades after the last T-72 is gone simply because thje T-72 was a bad design and the T-62 was not.
Like the 115mm that was upgraded to a 125mm in the T-64? And elaborate why the T-72 is bad even though it followed similar philosophy to the T-62
>Due to the flaws in the design of the T-72 it is a dead end in terms of tank development.
Duude. You can stretch T-72 hull on seven wheels, put meter thick glacis oni it and put turret with turret bustle autolader. Here is you Uber T-72.
T-62 chads stay winning. Also the Ukrainians made an export modernisation called the T-55/T-62AGM that more or less turns it into a mini T-80U.
>the T-62 can be considered a bad deal for export buyers, since it was marginally better than the T-55 for much more cost
Actually T-62 offered APFSDS over T-55 who get no such. And even steel core APFSDS is huge leap in practical lethality of the tank who had no FCS and only hadstadiametric WWII gunsight. Every War Whunder player knows how it is so much easier to hit things with APFSDS.
>Actually T-62 offered APFSDS over T-55 who get no such. And even steel core APFSDS is huge leap in practical lethality of the tank who had no FCS and only hadstadiametric WWII gunsight. Every War Whunder player knows how it is so much easier to hit things with APFSDS.
Funny, considering the T-55 had access to APFSDS like 3BM20
Tank in the picture looks like a plastic army man toy.
T-55 is such an upgradable platform that the chinks sell what is practically a highly evolved form of T-55
>much better engine and transmission
>larger 125mm gun
>fully stabilized gun
>Thermal + CITV
>RWS
They could've made better 100mm ammo. Amusingly enough one of the major reasons for moving to 115mm was because the Ministry of Defense just wanted something that was bigger than the 105mm that NATO was starting to use.
However, the T-62 was a decent enough vehicle. A nice, economical step up from the T-55 series that proved its worth by being the mainstay of the Soviet armored fleet until the late 70s (the T-64 was a nightmare and was almost immediately pulled off of frontline service and sent back for improvements for nearly a decade).
>Is this analogous to the M48 vs M60
Not a bad analogy really.