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?
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!
the Beast of War itself... "you know our standing orders: out of commission, become a pillbox ...out of ammo, become a bunker ...out of time, become heroes."
@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
@@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
@@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.
"the second army of the world" is preparing to fight in Ukraine on these museum exhibits). 800 tanks were prepared for restoration. Apparently they really wanted to scare NATO, but as always, something went wrong)).
Fun Fact: The Chinese captured a T-62 when things got heated between the borders of the USSR and the PRC. The T-62 No. 545 was one of 4 sent over to the Chinese border when it was disabled by a land mine. The other 3 tanks retreated under heavy fire which No. 545 was also subjugated to RPG fire. The Chinese and the Soviets exchanged multiple times to remove the stricken tank with the Soviets trying to destroy the tank while the Chinese eventually succeeding in recovering the tank successfully. The T-62 was carefully examined and prompted engineers to design the Type 69 MBT which incorporated many features such as the Luna IR searchlight system, a smoothbore cannon and a laser rangerfinder. The captured T-62 No. 545 is on display at the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution.
@@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 am constantly struck by the extremely clean profile of this tank. The high ground clearance, the low profile, this tank just *looks* fast, sitting there.
Eastern EU countries ran out of T-72s to give to Ukraine, so now they are receiving modernised T-55 from Slovenia. Against those the Russian T-62 are good enough.
@@benedeknagy8497 realistically speaking - the biggest supplier of tanks and vehicles to the Ukrainian army has been… the Russian army. So I imagine those T-62s are going to have to be good enough for both sides.
@@sdr24 Jokes aside, i'm not sure about that. Poland continously supplied Ukraine with tanks. By June they gave away 240 out of their 400 strong T-72M fleet. But since september the Poles started to send PT-91s instead of T-72Ms, suggesting, that they ran out of older T-72s. According to Oryx, Ukraine captured around 360 Russian tanks. So its possible, that currently the Poles are the Nr1.
Excellent video, the T-62M has seen very heavy use in the Syrian war, it has the advantages of being able to fire those missiles at ATGM positions at long range in the open desert, and Syria was so pleased with its performance that one of the first things they requested from Russia was more T-62Ms. The T-62M sees service along side something as modern as the T-90 in this theater which is very interesting.
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.
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
Any talk about the T-62 would be considered to be a matter of historical curiosity,. Except for the fact that Putin is deploying them in Ukraine these days. Mostly crewed by pensioners, apparently!
Việt Nam có một phiên bản cải tiến và đưa vào sử dụng đại trà. Khoảng 300 xe tăng cải tiến T-54m. Cải tiến xích xe mới, lắp giáp phản ứng nổ đầu xe, phản ứng nổ trên tháp pháo, giáp lồng và xích bi sắt phía sau pháp pháo, lắp máy tính đường đạn, máy quang ảnh nhiệt, đo xa lase, chiến đấu ngày đêm, kính cho trưởng xe, đo tốc độ gió, ống phóng đạn khói, súng phóng lựu 30mm, hệ thống ổn định trục vừa chạy vừa bắn, và đạn thanh xuyên động năng mới. Việt Nam đã tạo nên phiên bản T-54m hoàn hảo vừa có lớp giáp tốt, vừa có hệ thống điện tử tương đương T90s. Và có đạn xuyên nếu đấu tăng tay đôi, xuyên được lớp giáp de xe tăng M1 và type 99. Đạn này do cục kỹ thuật Việt Nam phát triển. Đây là bản xe tăng T-54 hiện đại và hoàn thiện nhất Thế Giới hiện tại vì có sức chiến đấu gần ngang với T90s. Và Việt Nam đã cải tiến được khoảng 300 chiếc đưa vào sử dụng, trang bị cho các lữ toàn tăng thiết giáp huấn luyện diễn tập và niêm cất. ❤
Russians be like: "What do you mean it belongs in a museum?! I drive one yesterday!" Also the YT creator be like: "Why is this video suddenly making me a lot of money 2 years after I posted 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
@@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 ;)
@@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.
For nations with limited resources and small likelihood of having to fight a top level enemy, an affordable and mechanically reliable old tank like the T-62 makes a lot of sense. Particularly so if fitted out with an ERA add-on package, since most low tech AT weapons (i.e. RPGs) use shaped charge HEAT rounds.
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.
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.
@@kiprassereika9912he right that west propaganda show stupid fakes) but many experts say that Ukrainian army have loses near 400 000 people) and sure there more tanks in it
When the Red Army retired their 3 tank divisions from Ludwigslust (northern east-germany) in the early 1990s, they did it in one go. All the roads used turned from tarmac into dust... ...although, there weren't that good roads in those days around
You are wrong about the tracks , they are held in place by bolts just as the T 54/55 and all Soviet and Russians tanks that follow the T54/55, the noise is made probably by the metal tracks connecting with the drive sprocket plus the tracks going round the metal front idler wheel , yes there is a metal plate on the rear of the tank like on the T34 but as you could see it was not worn from being hit by lose track pins , because you could see the bolt heads in the tracks which hold the track pins in place . You should not believe everything you hear , use you eyes , look and examine and question everything , when a person is wrong correct them.
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.
@@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.
You just spent 20 minutes talking about T-62 barely mentioning it's main innovation - the first mass produced smoothbore tank cannon, this is the reason NATO abandoned attempts to manufacture proper armor protection untill the 80's and rolled around in cardboard boxes like the M60 Patton, Leopard 1 and AMX30. I know you Brits love stroking your precious HESH and pretending smoothbores are nothing important, but technological progress will eventually force you out of the stone age, either that or you will just stop funding tanks altogether.
You're right, but the M60 had armor protection more or less equivalent to T-62s. The Leopard 1 and AMX-30 had barely enough armor to stop 30mm rounds though. In fact, even a T-34 model 1941 could knock them out at decent range with its 76mm gun...
@John Matrix Yeah, shaped charges are very effective on rolled homogenous steel armor. The M60 is an overrated tank in my opinion. It's basically just a beefed up M48.
Regarding those built in Czechoslovakia, he calls them "Czech tanks". In fact, the plant was in Slovakia, so it were technically Slovak tanks, not Czech :D The reason why the tank plant was located in Slovakia was, that Warsaw pact doctrine and war planning was expecting in potential conflict with the West most of Czech country to be a buffer zone, completely devastated and destroyed.
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.
Very informative video. Most of the Iraqi T-62 MBTs were taken out by the Western Alliance which included the USA, during the GULF WAR1. None of these tanks was able to match the firepower of AMX30, the British Challengers, and the USA Abraham. The Iraqi Army made some serious battlefield errors which you can read online. Most of the T62 and T55 MBTs were stationed like artillery pieces inside desert tranches, waiting for the enemy to come around. That did not happen as the USA Army and other Western Allies, used the cobra and other military choppers and MLRS 70 system to barrage the Iraqi artillery and Republican Guard units managing the armour/mechanized formations in the desert. Also, the Iraqi MBTs lacked night vision, ERA protection, and friend - foe identification systems. So IRAQI ARMY T62 turned out to be an utter failure in the Gulf Wars for ostensible reasons.
@@kristoffer3000 Da Comrade, I heard he also can bench press 400kg, Stalin is truly the wise and great leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.
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.
I absolutely love these chats. Thank you for creating this channel as this helps me to understand more and learn more about these tanks. Keep safe out there ans hope to see more of these in the near future. :)
It may not be the tank you want to fight a modern war with, but it's the tank that starts in the morning. And when your enemy's equivalent is a pickup truck with a guy on the back packing an RPG-7, it's enough.
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.
@@vladevteev3031 bs, Russia fielded T-62, T-72, T-90, and a few T-80. They gave T-62 to Chechen and local militias. Ukraine nowadays uses primarily captured russian hardware, so the aforementioned models.
@@Nathan-eu6tm Those are DPR..The footage you have is Ukrainian. By the way, what are Ukrainians using? 100mm 'Rapira' guns developed in 1943, mounted on BrDM chassis. What happened to the 2000 odd Ukrainian tanks? What happened to the modified Warsaw Pact tanks Ukraine received? What ammo are Ukrainians using? In particular, what is the length of the penetrator, compared with current Russian munitions? Even Javelins and NLAWs only had a 10-15% kill probability. T62's are perfectly fine for the way Russians are waging this campaign.
Now that Russia is taking these out of storage, this is very interesting. We will see what happens when they meet modern ATM systems like the javelin and the British nlaw.
Still in action in Syria and Ukraine not as a tank but as an assault gun provideing a heavy punch for the lightly equiped Luhansk and Donnets militias.
I wonder how these will stand up to Javelin, NLAW, Panzerfaust etc in Ukraine. The Russians must be running short to be dragging these out of hibernation.
Well they would be just as vulnerable to modern AT weapons and even more so even if they wouldnt hit the turret. Ofc some of them might have reactive armour installed on top of them, so they might be bit more protected against RPG-7 and such weaker AT weapons but if not, then even against those I would imagine T62s couldnt stand much I couldnt imagine that they would put T62s on the most active fronts in Ukraine, but more on guard duty in areas they want to keep under their control and guard against Ukranian counter attacks, like for example in southern Ukraine, so they would have all the T72s, T80s and T90s available where they mostly need them. The one "advantage" T62 might have is the way the ammunion is stored compared to later Soviet era tanks, but on the other hand its armor is much weaker so...ye I just cant see it put into more active fronts unless Russians are REALLY running low on their "better" tanks, which they certainly are if T62s are pulled out of storage. But I strongly suspect they are going to be put on areas that dont see the heaviest of fighting, atleast first Imagine how weak Russia will be after this war in regards to their armourded forces....If only Russia didnt have nuclear weapons, NATO could crush and remove Putin by force quite relatively easily. The only threat aside from nuclear (and possibly chemical) weapons would be Russian artillery which though is weaker/less capable than what NATO has, but their numbers are great and their anti-air defence systems. But other than that their military is a joke from their navy to air force to infantry and armoured troops. Overall I would have never imagine when this war started that Russia would end up pulling out whatever scraps they have from their storage
We had a couple of operational T-62 and T-54's at Ft Knox we got from the Israelis in the 1970s They seemed crude in some ways with inferior optics to our M60A3 tanks. They were export models sold to Egypt so maybe the Russian tanks had better optics but I doubt it. We had no ammunition for them that I saw so I can't say how they shot.
That typical clacking of the T-34 track comes from the long track links slapping on the ground under the first road wheel, especially on a hard surface. You can definitely see\hear it on good quality footage. I doubt that every pin is so loose that it gets in contact with the wedge every time like clockwork.
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.
@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...
@@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.
Russia has lost 2500 tanks already. A Russian tank is, at the moment at least, just a driving crematorium. Jolly good fun to see the turrets launch into space but the crews getting extra crispy inside won't agree I guess 😅
@@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 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
Some Eastern Bloc countries decided to pass on the T-62 - the relatively small increase in performance over the T-55 was not worth the massive price difference. For example Poland went straight from T-55s to "export" (all steel armour and downgraded fire control) T-72s - both of which they built themselves on a license.
@@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.
The Russian military want that T-62 back, they need to press it into service … especially as they know that _this one_ has been kept in good condition.
Hello, i am pretty sure that T-62 was never produce in Czechoslovakia, it certainly never was in servis with its military. I think its a hoax or coldwar misinterpretation, cause this information appears only in english written sources.
Well I think a president has been set now Mr Curator. Logically the only way forward now is to do the T64 then the T72 and so on. I see a mini series forming in tank chats.
Very informative, especially the video of the river crossing. In the 70’s one of my tasks was to teach enemy recognition of the various Warsaw Pact vehicles. Our OP’s needed to know exactly what they were facing. I had to attend a briefing with military intelligence at Bielefeld. I and a lot of others sat through a similar film about how the T62’s snorkelled across a river in the Soviet Union. After he asked what did we think? We couldn’t be but impressed with what we had just seen, he said we couldn’t be more wrong if we tried and explained. Most rivers in the Soviet Union were slow moving, quite shallow with low sloping banks. In West Germany, the Rhine and Weser rivers were fast flowing, quite deep and had steep banks. Also he added, did anyone do a count? No one had. He said 115 T62’s entered the river and only 81 came out the other side. Then he said, now gentlemen you are all in the Artillery what do you think you would be doing if they tried this? Apparently, the Russian tankies absolutely hated with fear and dread when they had to do this exercise. Again thanks for the video.
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????
Haha, but an unlikely notice. Russia's military industry complex is pretty much alive and kicking, unlike how the West portrays them. It's the inside bureaucracy and politics that's killing the logistics.
If possible, more Russian/Soviet armor please. I love the back stories of the vehicles (any) and all of them have been fascinating, please keep up the good work and thank you! Always wondered what the difference between 54/55 and the 62 was, they look very similar.
"explosive squibs which will close down hatches" What if the commander's looking out his hatch at that moment? You're sealed in the tank with his headless corpse?
I felt strange when hearing about it. Why would Czechoslovakia make T-55AM if could have T-62. Well few Warsaw Pact countries did not wanted rushed design of T-62 as they knew the very new and very potent tank is comming. Maybe Sir David has some sources claiming this to be true. I dont believe it tho.
@@michaljanecek82 Well T-54AM2 is the thing that I never heard of. In fact it is the one that never existed. T-55AM/AM2 was a peak point of what you could call other way to cover the gap before T-64 and T-72 arrived. By that I mean all what led to obtaining these standards. Because these did not happened in a single swift move from T-55 made in the 50s right up to the T-55AM modernization in the 1985.
Some older sources claim that some T-62s were produced by Czechoslovakia purely for export, but I think it might be a Cold War myth as I don't find much on the subject. Sometimes, USSR used Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to other country without attracting attention or to circumvent sanctions. Maybe it comes from that. The Americans also often concluded that any new Soviet equipment would be immediately sold to their Warsaw Pact clients in very large numbers as if they were a sponge for spare equipment, but the actual satellites didn't always want to buy them. Warsaw Pact countries skipped the T-62 concluding it wasn't a big enough improvement on the T-55 to be worth it and opted to upgrade their fleet of the later. Finally, they got the T-72 which is a whole lot better in all categories.
one mistake - Czechoslovakia did not produce T62 tanks at all... they produced T54/55 tanks, and when license was acquired, T72 tanks were produced. T62 was skipped, it was never in use with CSLA.
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 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)
Great Video as ever! Was at The Tank Museum last Wednesday. Got to say, I am loving the new display layouts. Also, The Staff are doing an Excellent Job under the current difficulties. Still well worth booking a visit
Well, in theory the party higher ups could object the general secretary or the premier, however, particularily under Stalin most of those who opposed him were purged until only the ones who were too scared or obedient were left over. Under later Soviet leaders this wasn't the case, for example Krushchev was peacefully deposed by the party higher ups. It's a very authoritarian system, but technically not a clear dictatorship.
@@CallanElliott Well yeah, but more of a dictatorship by the higher ups instead of one person is what I'm saying. It is obviously still a form of dictatorship.
Well, actually installing a snorkel took only about one hour. Other 7 hours it took for the soldiers to find a building with drainpipes to jury-rig the bloody thing.
Love these looks at soviet tanks. Nice to see westerners willing to do more than just parrot "russia tank bad" and dismiss its significance. Hello from Russia!
Yup because you see many destroyed. not 1 unless was from donbass years ago. clown, these are siege weapons that when the attack starts, hundreds of these will be like tank destroyers coming up to back clearing bunkers and emplacements. these aren't going up against any other tanks unless there jumping a few that fell behind.
Russia has enough tanks for 20 years of war. They're only using the T-62 because Ukraine doesn't have much in the way of modern anti tank weaponry, so the only way they're going to kill a T-62 is either with a side shot from something outdated like an RPG-7, which a T-72 or T-90 would also be destroyed by, or with one of their few modern anti tank weapons, in which case very few tanks in the world could survive a clean shot. So, why risk your modern, more expensive, vehicles when something old which was just draining your treasury by sitting in storage can do everything else the modern ones can? The protection differences aren't that much, so you're going to lose roughly the same amount of tanks for a given operation, so it only makes logical sense to decrease the long term cost of those losses
@@filmandfirearms Nice propaganda for local russian usage. Sorry but not for the outside world. Also, T-62 was an export model while ussr government planned to use T-64 as more advanced tank that remained secret during cold war in case of actual wide scale warfare.
It was like that in all Warsaw Pact countries, since they all used Russian designed tanks (not necessarily built in Russia, ex. Poland was building its own version under license).
he was a bit of anti tank, he liked atgms. to be honest that was smart thinking as we can see it right now in the russia-ukraine war, t-90s, t-80s, t-72s getting destroyed in hundreds cause of atgms, fgm-148 javelins, nlaws, rpgs, stugna-s P. All that stuff makin records in Kill/Miss ratio. the thing is, one squad of infantry can take out up to propably 5 modern tanks with the portable atgm systems and atgl's.
@@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
min 1:40 - Nikita Khrushchev kinda he was a bit visionary if you look now what's happening in Ukraine where the NLAW, Stunga-P and Javelin are just storming the tanks there.
The sad truth is that either NATO or the WARSAW Pact intended to attack each other. Both sides planned on massive nuclear retaliation if faced with an attack WW 2 style. Millions wasted for nothing.
Well those millions wasted did provide a massive boost to research and technology, shaping the high-tech world we live in today. The world wide web for instance was a project developed for the military.
@@Gamelord191 Of course they did. Developing a supersonic jet or a tank means solving a lot of engineering problems, electronics, precise instruments, resource management, u name it. All of those can relate to civilian technologies. I see it as the military industrial complex being the basis for development of new techs. Serious research of new a technology requires a lot of effort, finance, equipment and scientists, and the military can provide all of that. A flying drone was a kick starter project at first and the military saw interest into it. They took it over and developed it further into an attack drone. Civilian drones came later and got popular very fast, being used in film making or just as a hobby. They also got cheaper, so more people can afford them. A drones camera is sometimes more expensive than the drone itself! I know it is better to stop militarizing our society, stop the wars (there is always a local conflict going on somewhere on the globe) and head for our Moon again, or ideally colonize Mars. But we live in a monetary system today and in a monetary system - there is profit. And that is another story :)
@@demonprinces17 Yea, right. We always have been thinking about it. We still do. Hell, I'm thinking about it right now! When I drink beer I think of invading Germany. When I drink tea I think of invading England. I just cant sleep at night because I think about invading France. Tell you what: when the world spoke French the Russians reached Paris, when the world spoke German the Russians reached Berlin. Now the world speaks English! Where shall the Russians end up this time? So be afraid! Be very afraid! P.S. We were not the first to develop nuclear weapons. There is only one country that have ever used them on civilian population 2 times and that aint us!
I had a friend that was a tank driver in West Germany. The Army estimated there tanks would last about 10 minutes if the USSR launch an all out attack.
Little did he know how bad we could crush these tanks once we did fight them. Unless your talking pre1980s in that case it would have been a nasty fight.
@@taylorc2542 Those claims paint the Russian's as some sort of battlefield supermen who never miss and kill everything immediately that shoots at them. I heard the samething when I was in and being in the FDC we were told we had one minute and 30 seconds to live. I already knew as a private that was BS. I fire direction control for m109's. We shoot and move just like tanks. 90 seconds after firing we're a half mile down the road so unless they're pounding the entire grid area with the Russian version of a MLRS we were going to be fine. Personally I think that was just the military rumor mill and not based on a real Army study. If it was the study was crap. It wouldn't be the first time the US Military got it wrong. The WW2 Army boot because of it's poor design caused roughly 25% of all US non combat casualties in WW2 and then there's the Navy's Mark14 torpedo or the $1280 coffee cups the Air Force uses.
@@readhistory2023 you forgot the $7000 coffee makers on the B-52s. Why $7000 well, personally I don't know of any other coffee makers than can survive impacting the ground from 40,000 feet because the bomber it is in crashed.
@@readhistory2023 It more paints the Soviet bloc as being willing to just obliterate everything with massed artillery and sending enough material that troops stationed would not be able to hold. Which is fair. Like ok? You sit in your M109 in the 1980s, so what? The Soviets have their own Air Force and artillery raining on you. The tanks are just to make sure you’re dead.
при чем тут Хрущев. Ограничение веса танка было определено подвижностью танка,ж/д платформой, грузоподъемностью мостов.Кроме того вооружение среднего танка мощной пушкой сводило на нет все преимущества тяжелого танка
Another great video! With all the talk at the beginning about anti-tank guided missiles, I am surprised the IT-1 missile tank variant was not mentioned in the video. Maybe another time?
17:10 Deep wading looks...exciting. I'm guessing if you needed to evacuate the tank while doing this you'd have to flood the crew compartment and wait for the pressure to equalize before you could open the hatches.
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.
Superb! Willey's chats are really informative, long, but still don't seem long enough. Some of the best lectures on YT.
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.
I wanna say that a good 100k of these views are now from Russians doing "training" 😂
"He was a bit anti-tank"
I never new Khrushchev was an anti-tank weapon
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
the Beast of War itself...
"you know our standing orders:
out of commission, become a pillbox ...out of ammo, become a bunker ...out of time, become heroes."
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.
Who would have thought in 2020 that the T62 would be on a modern battlefield in 2022.
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
Willey: When Stalin's deposed, when Khrushchev takes power...
Malenkov: Am I a joke to you?
Historians: Actually, yes.
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
"the second army of the world" is preparing to fight in Ukraine on these museum exhibits). 800 tanks were prepared for restoration. Apparently they really wanted to scare NATO, but as always, something went wrong)).
well done...as a former M60 mechanic I really enjoy hearing the details of other tanks ..thank you
Fun Fact:
The Chinese captured a T-62 when things got heated between the borders of the USSR and the PRC. The T-62 No. 545 was one of 4 sent over to the Chinese border when it was disabled by a land mine. The other 3 tanks retreated under heavy fire which No. 545 was also subjugated to RPG fire. The Chinese and the Soviets exchanged multiple times to remove the stricken tank with the Soviets trying to destroy the tank while the Chinese eventually succeeding in recovering the tank successfully. The T-62 was carefully examined and prompted engineers to design the Type 69 MBT which incorporated many features such as the Luna IR searchlight system, a smoothbore cannon and a laser rangerfinder. The captured T-62 No. 545 is on display at the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution.
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.
I am constantly struck by the extremely clean profile of this tank. The high ground clearance, the low profile, this tank just *looks* fast, sitting there.
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.
Watching this in October of 2022 after hearing that Russia is desperate enough they’re going to start trying to make THESE again to fight in Ukraine.
You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till they get back to deploying T54/55's and ultimately T34-85's.
Eastern EU countries ran out of T-72s to give to Ukraine, so now they are receiving modernised T-55 from Slovenia. Against those the Russian T-62 are good enough.
@@benedeknagy8497 realistically speaking - the biggest supplier of tanks and vehicles to the Ukrainian army has been… the Russian army. So I imagine those T-62s are going to have to be good enough for both sides.
@@sdr24 Jokes aside, i'm not sure about that. Poland continously supplied Ukraine with tanks. By June they gave away 240 out of their 400 strong T-72M fleet. But since september the Poles started to send PT-91s instead of T-72Ms, suggesting, that they ran out of older T-72s. According to Oryx, Ukraine captured around 360 Russian tanks. So its possible, that currently the Poles are the Nr1.
Excellent video, the T-62M has seen very heavy use in the Syrian war, it has the advantages of being able to fire those missiles at ATGM positions at long range in the open desert, and Syria was so pleased with its performance that one of the first things they requested from Russia was more T-62Ms. The T-62M sees service along side something as modern as the T-90 in this theater which is very interesting.
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.
It was really amazing how many tanks CCCP had during the 50-80's.
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.
I enjoyed going to the Bovington Tank Museum it was my present
Not enough Soviet Tanks for me. It was OK though.
@Hardy Thomas all tanks are amazing
Any talk about the T-62 would be considered to be a matter of historical curiosity,.
Except for the fact that Putin is deploying them in Ukraine these days. Mostly crewed by pensioners, apparently!
You mean "prisoners" right?
... Right?
@@Mordecrox
Both are correct...
"Khrushchev is slightly anti-tank"...so he is what the PaK 36 started to be from 1941 onwards :D
😂 clever, even with that silly super rifle grenade thing it could fire.
Now THAT... was a clever tank knock-knock joke...
@@KapitanPoop PanzerKnacker
😂
Russia's newest main battle tank! Can't wait to see the advanced T54 and T55s get rolled out.
yay the Sleve M-55S
Việt Nam có một phiên bản cải tiến và đưa vào sử dụng đại trà. Khoảng 300 xe tăng cải tiến T-54m. Cải tiến xích xe mới, lắp giáp phản ứng nổ đầu xe, phản ứng nổ trên tháp pháo, giáp lồng và xích bi sắt phía sau pháp pháo, lắp máy tính đường đạn, máy quang ảnh nhiệt, đo xa lase, chiến đấu ngày đêm, kính cho trưởng xe, đo tốc độ gió, ống phóng đạn khói, súng phóng lựu 30mm, hệ thống ổn định trục vừa chạy vừa bắn, và đạn thanh xuyên động năng mới. Việt Nam đã tạo nên phiên bản T-54m hoàn hảo vừa có lớp giáp tốt, vừa có hệ thống điện tử tương đương T90s. Và có đạn xuyên nếu đấu tăng tay đôi, xuyên được lớp giáp de xe tăng M1 và type 99. Đạn này do cục kỹ thuật Việt Nam phát triển. Đây là bản xe tăng T-54 hiện đại và hoàn thiện nhất Thế Giới hiện tại vì có sức chiến đấu gần ngang với T90s. Và Việt Nam đã cải tiến được khoảng 300 chiếc đưa vào sử dụng, trang bị cho các lữ toàn tăng thiết giáp huấn luyện diễn tập và niêm cất. ❤
Seems like enough to defeat NATO equipment 🤣
Wait they have the T34 in the works too! just awesome…
T55 is good tank
Comparable to the m48/m60
Russians be like: "What do you mean it belongs in a museum?! I drive one yesterday!"
Also the YT creator be like: "Why is this video suddenly making me a lot of money 2 years after I posted it?!"
Came here to say this and jokingly ask the museum if Russia has asked for their tank back.
I'm old enough to remember having to memorize IDing these vehicles.
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 ;)
They secretly developed the turret ejection system that was perfected in the T72
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.
Will be coming to the U.K. soon and this tank museum is scheduled for an entire day. Really looking forward to seeing their awsome collection.
For nations with limited resources and small likelihood of having to fight a top level enemy, an affordable and mechanically reliable old tank like the T-62 makes a lot of sense. Particularly so if fitted out with an ERA add-on package, since most low tech AT weapons (i.e. RPGs) use shaped charge HEAT rounds.
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
The T-62 was the tank used by the Russians in the Georgia war as they just used the closest division available.
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.
I find it hilarious that russian fascists are dying inside those tanks in 2022.
And now Russia using them in Ukraine, due heavy looses in newer tanks.
you're funny💀💀
@@bluudlunghe is funny but also right😅
🤣🤣🤣🤣 and now burn leopards)) and will abrams
@@kiprassereika9912he right that west propaganda show stupid fakes) but many experts say that Ukrainian army have loses near 400 000 people) and sure there more tanks in it
@@protivliberastov9182 how much are they paying you and whats the time in churkistan
Matsimus has a video of one of these types firing and a guy behind the tank getting clocked in the head by a shell casing when it gets ejected.
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!
When the Red Army retired their 3 tank divisions from Ludwigslust (northern east-germany) in the early 1990s, they did it in one go. All the roads used turned from tarmac into dust...
...although, there weren't that good roads in those days around
interesting...kinda good because the roads only had to be rebuilt once ;)
The T-62 is truly iconic. Thank you for this tank chat.
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
When someone said "Everything old is new again", I don't think this is what they had in mind. But, here we are...
so... have the local russian embassy representatives contacted the Tank Museum already to ask the museum to return their tanks? ;P
Lets all agree on something, the reason we prefer the t-62 over the t54/55 is simply because the turret is smoother snd rounder
You are wrong about the tracks , they are held in place by bolts just as the T 54/55 and all Soviet and Russians tanks that follow the T54/55, the noise is made probably by the metal tracks connecting with the drive sprocket plus the tracks going round the metal front idler wheel , yes there is a metal plate on the rear of the tank like on the T34 but as you could see it was not worn from being hit by lose track pins , because you could see the bolt heads in the tracks which hold the track pins in place . You should not believe everything you hear , use you eyes , look and examine and question everything , when a person is wrong correct them.
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
Let's see how cheap of an Anti-Tank system the Ukrainians can use to pick off these t-62 tanks in 2022. 😛
Historic: 4 rounds/min stationary
Arcade: 12 rounds/min daka
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.
You just spent 20 minutes talking about T-62 barely mentioning it's main innovation - the first mass produced smoothbore tank cannon, this is the reason NATO abandoned attempts to manufacture proper armor protection untill the 80's and rolled around in cardboard boxes like the M60 Patton, Leopard 1 and AMX30. I know you Brits love stroking your precious HESH and pretending smoothbores are nothing important, but technological progress will eventually force you out of the stone age, either that or you will just stop funding tanks altogether.
You're right, but the M60 had armor protection more or less equivalent to T-62s. The Leopard 1 and AMX-30 had barely enough armor to stop 30mm rounds though. In fact, even a T-34 model 1941 could knock them out at decent range with its 76mm gun...
@John Matrix Yeah, shaped charges are very effective on rolled homogenous steel armor. The M60 is an overrated tank in my opinion. It's basically just a beefed up M48.
Philippe D.R. Wasn’t that what it was developed as?
And now back in active service with the Russian army.
Regarding those built in Czechoslovakia, he calls them "Czech tanks". In fact, the plant was in Slovakia, so it were technically Slovak tanks, not Czech :D The reason why the tank plant was located in Slovakia was, that Warsaw pact doctrine and war planning was expecting in potential conflict with the West most of Czech country to be a buffer zone, completely devastated and destroyed.
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.
Very informative video. Most of the Iraqi T-62 MBTs were taken out by the Western Alliance which included the USA, during the GULF WAR1. None of these tanks was able to match the firepower of AMX30, the British Challengers, and the USA Abraham. The Iraqi Army made some serious battlefield errors which you can read online. Most of the T62 and T55 MBTs were stationed like artillery pieces inside desert tranches, waiting for the enemy to come around. That did not happen as the USA Army and other Western Allies, used the cobra and other military choppers and MLRS 70 system to barrage the Iraqi artillery and Republican Guard units managing the armour/mechanized formations in the desert.
Also, the Iraqi MBTs lacked night vision, ERA protection, and friend - foe identification systems.
So IRAQI ARMY T62 turned out to be an utter failure in the Gulf Wars for ostensible reasons.
T 62 Match the western twnk at those time only the Iraqi use it wrong
"the USSR was .... almost like a dictatorship"
really?
Ahahahahahah nice one yep
museum? T-62 fights in Ukraine 60 years later.
better than none
bruh
T62/72 tanks got totally destroyed in Angola by simple anti-tank Ratel fighting vehicles....just saying 🇿🇦🍻👍🇿🇦
Keep that one under lock and key mate, the Russians wants them back!
Almost like a dictatorship? The understatement of the century, lol
Simply typical British understatement.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat, comrade!
It wasn't a dictatorship, Stalin even tried resigning several times.
@@kristoffer3000 Da Comrade, I heard he also can bench press 400kg, Stalin is truly the wise and great leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.
With the Russian army polishing these up again, this chat is worth a second look!
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
I absolutely love these chats. Thank you for creating this channel as this helps me to understand more and learn more about these tanks. Keep safe out there ans hope to see more of these in the near future. :)
Seems those T-62 are back on the field.
Time for the Swedes ship some Stridsvagn S to Ukraine, as this one was constructed with T-62 as possible enemy.😊
It may not be the tank you want to fight a modern war with, but it's the tank that starts in the morning.
And when your enemy's equivalent is a pickup truck with a guy on the back packing an RPG-7, it's enough.
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.
And here we are ... 2 years later and the T-62 is back in action in Ukraine. Russia is really desperate to bring this Dino back in action
I keep you informed, Russia does not use t 62, Russia has t 72 and above, but Ukraine uses old people
@@vladevteev3031 Yeah, about that, they (Russia) are pulling them of storage! XD
@@vladevteev3031 bs, Russia fielded T-62, T-72, T-90, and a few T-80. They gave T-62 to Chechen and local militias. Ukraine nowadays uses primarily captured russian hardware, so the aforementioned models.
@@vladevteev3031 Bruh there's actual footage of Russia using the T-62 in Ukraine
@@Nathan-eu6tm Those are DPR..The footage you have is Ukrainian. By the way, what are Ukrainians using? 100mm 'Rapira' guns developed in 1943, mounted on BrDM chassis. What happened to the 2000 odd Ukrainian tanks? What happened to the modified Warsaw Pact tanks Ukraine received? What ammo are Ukrainians using? In particular, what is the length of the penetrator, compared with current Russian munitions? Even Javelins and NLAWs only had a 10-15% kill probability. T62's are perfectly fine for the way Russians are waging this campaign.
Funny to watch Russia try to revive these in a hurry 😂
Now that Russia is taking these out of storage, this is very interesting. We will see what happens when they meet modern ATM systems like the javelin and the British nlaw.
Their turrets won't fly but otherwise they'll be as vulnerable as any other tank to those AT weapons.
Still in action in Syria and Ukraine not as a tank but as an assault gun provideing a heavy punch for the lightly equiped Luhansk and Donnets militias.
I wonder how these will stand up to Javelin, NLAW, Panzerfaust etc in Ukraine.
The Russians must be running short to be dragging these out of hibernation.
Well they would be just as vulnerable to modern AT weapons and even more so even if they wouldnt hit the turret. Ofc some of them might have reactive armour installed on top of them, so they might be bit more protected against RPG-7 and such weaker AT weapons but if not, then even against those I would imagine T62s couldnt stand much
I couldnt imagine that they would put T62s on the most active fronts in Ukraine, but more on guard duty in areas they want to keep under their control and guard against Ukranian counter attacks, like for example in southern Ukraine, so they would have all the T72s, T80s and T90s available where they mostly need them.
The one "advantage" T62 might have is the way the ammunion is stored compared to later Soviet era tanks, but on the other hand its armor is much weaker so...ye I just cant see it put into more active fronts unless Russians are REALLY running low on their "better" tanks, which they certainly are if T62s are pulled out of storage. But I strongly suspect they are going to be put on areas that dont see the heaviest of fighting, atleast first
Imagine how weak Russia will be after this war in regards to their armourded forces....If only Russia didnt have nuclear weapons, NATO could crush and remove Putin by force quite relatively easily. The only threat aside from nuclear (and possibly chemical) weapons would be Russian artillery which though is weaker/less capable than what NATO has, but their numbers are great and their anti-air defence systems. But other than that their military is a joke from their navy to air force to infantry and armoured troops.
Overall I would have never imagine when this war started that Russia would end up pulling out whatever scraps they have from their storage
Not well
We had a couple of operational T-62 and T-54's at Ft Knox we got from the Israelis in the 1970s They seemed crude in some ways with inferior optics to our M60A3 tanks. They were export models sold to Egypt so maybe the Russian tanks had better optics but I doubt it. We had no ammunition for them that I saw so I can't say how they shot.
That typical clacking of the T-34 track comes from the long track links slapping on the ground under the first road wheel, especially on a hard surface. You can definitely see\hear it on good quality footage. I doubt that every pin is so loose that it gets in contact with the wedge every time like clockwork.
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.
This aged well. It is 2022 and these tanks are now being fielded in masses.
@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.
Russia has lost 2500 tanks already. A Russian tank is, at the moment at least, just a driving crematorium. Jolly good fun to see the turrets launch into space but the crews getting extra crispy inside won't agree I guess 😅
Looks like we're about to see how well they hold up against Javelins. I'm betting it won't go well.
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
Some Eastern Bloc countries decided to pass on the T-62 - the relatively small increase in performance over the T-55 was not worth the massive price difference. For example Poland went straight from T-55s to "export" (all steel armour and downgraded fire control) T-72s - both of which they built themselves on a license.
Next month in Ukraine... the new MBT of Russia the T34
Maybe they'll skip a generation and go straight to the T-26? 😉
"... the Soviet Union was almost like a dictatorship..."
Understatement of the century. :-))
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.
I doubt the designers of the T-62 planned on the need for anti John Deere protection!
The Russian military want that T-62 back, they need to press it into service … especially as they know that _this one_ has been kept in good condition.
That tank video game is what taught me so much about tanks and got me so interested.
@Pretty Russian girl that is balșoi tank
@Cody Sonnet LA
Hello, i am pretty sure that T-62 was never produce in Czechoslovakia, it certainly never was in servis with its military. I think its a hoax or coldwar misinterpretation, cause this information appears only in english written sources.
Well I think a president has been set now Mr Curator. Logically the only way forward now is to do the T64 then the T72 and so on. I see a mini series forming in tank chats.
Very informative, especially the video of the river crossing. In the 70’s one of my tasks was to teach enemy recognition of the various Warsaw Pact vehicles. Our OP’s needed to know exactly what they were facing. I had to attend a briefing with military intelligence at Bielefeld. I and a lot of others sat through a similar film about how the T62’s snorkelled across a river in the Soviet Union. After he asked what did we think? We couldn’t be but impressed with what we had just seen, he said we couldn’t be more wrong if we tried and explained. Most rivers in the Soviet Union were slow moving, quite shallow with low sloping banks. In West Germany, the Rhine and Weser rivers were fast flowing, quite deep and had steep banks. Also he added, did anyone do a count? No one had. He said 115 T62’s entered the river and only 81 came out the other side. Then he said, now gentlemen you are all in the Artillery what do you think you would be doing if they tried this? Apparently, the Russian tankies absolutely hated with fear and dread when they had to do this exercise. Again thanks for the video.
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
Be carefull, russia may ask for tanks from your museum to put them on ukrainian front, they run out of equipment ;)
They had Abrams Bradley Leopard etc in Moscow Wreck fest now😅
Haha, but an unlikely notice. Russia's military industry complex is pretty much alive and kicking, unlike how the West portrays them. It's the inside bureaucracy and politics that's killing the logistics.
It's an odd thing but I'm going back to the old tank museum videos to "update" myself on Russias "new" tanks
Me too 😉
If possible, more Russian/Soviet armor please. I love the back stories of the vehicles (any) and all of them have been fascinating, please keep up the good work and thank you! Always wondered what the difference between 54/55 and the 62 was, they look very similar.
"explosive squibs which will close down hatches"
What if the commander's looking out his hatch at that moment? You're sealed in the tank with his headless corpse?
Czechoslovakia has never built T-62s, after T-54/55 we've switched to T-72. Rumors do exist, but they seem to be just that.
I felt strange when hearing about it. Why would Czechoslovakia make T-55AM if could have T-62. Well few Warsaw Pact countries did not wanted rushed design of T-62 as they knew the very new and very potent tank is comming.
Maybe Sir David has some sources claiming this to be true. I dont believe it tho.
he said that they were exported tho, so did we just produce them to the SSSR and then sell them right away? Ofc we never used them.
@@HanSolo__ T54AM2/T55AM2 was a program of modernisation the obsolet T54 and T55 tanks still in use (mainly in tank regiments of mechanised divisions)
@@michaljanecek82 Well T-54AM2 is the thing that I never heard of. In fact it is the one that never existed. T-55AM/AM2 was a peak point of what you could call other way to cover the gap before T-64 and T-72 arrived. By that I mean all what led to obtaining these standards. Because these did not happened in a single swift move from T-55 made in the 50s right up to the T-55AM modernization in the 1985.
Some older sources claim that some T-62s were produced by Czechoslovakia purely for export, but I think it might be a Cold War myth as I don't find much on the subject. Sometimes, USSR used Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to other country without attracting attention or to circumvent sanctions. Maybe it comes from that. The Americans also often concluded that any new Soviet equipment would be immediately sold to their Warsaw Pact clients in very large numbers as if they were a sponge for spare equipment, but the actual satellites didn't always want to buy them. Warsaw Pact countries skipped the T-62 concluding it wasn't a big enough improvement on the T-55 to be worth it and opted to upgrade their fleet of the later. Finally, they got the T-72 which is a whole lot better in all categories.
one mistake - Czechoslovakia did not produce T62 tanks at all... they produced T54/55 tanks, and when license was acquired, T72 tanks were produced. T62 was skipped, it was never in use with CSLA.
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.
I didn't recognize T-62 without new 2022 upgrade (wooden flat roof).
Great Video as ever! Was at The Tank Museum last Wednesday. Got to say, I am loving the new display layouts. Also, The Staff are doing an Excellent Job under the current difficulties. Still well worth booking a visit
"Almost like a dictatorship almost."
Isn't that exactly what the Soviet Union was pretty much, a dictatorship?
Well, in theory the party higher ups could object the general secretary or the premier, however, particularily under Stalin most of those who opposed him were purged until only the ones who were too scared or obedient were left over.
Under later Soviet leaders this wasn't the case, for example Krushchev was peacefully deposed by the party higher ups.
It's a very authoritarian system, but technically not a clear dictatorship.
@@Skyrimfan002 Still pretty much a dictatorship though.
@LineOfCars All armies are dictatorial by nature, though.
@Repeat After Me:Most of the population probably.
@@CallanElliott Well yeah, but more of a dictatorship by the higher ups instead of one person is what I'm saying. It is obviously still a form of dictatorship.
"Sweeping the fields with their t-tanks" brits: excuse me?
8 hours to set up the snorkel system? Doesn't sound like it was fully integrated into the tank's systems.
Well, actually installing a snorkel took only about one hour. Other 7 hours it took for the soldiers to find a building with drainpipes to jury-rig the bloody thing.
I’ve swum an amphibious armoured vehicle. It takes a long time to go round and close all the other places where water can get in.
They would do faster with greasing every hole in T-34. What was practiced during WWII.
It sounds like a joke compared to 30 min tops on Leopard 2, or switching a lever if you skip the chimney on a turret
@@PolesAreEverywhere To be honest it sounds very long compared to literally everything.
Love these looks at soviet tanks. Nice to see westerners willing to do more than just parrot "russia tank bad" and dismiss its significance.
Hello from Russia!
The T62 is Russias newest tank- on the ukraine front
Yup because you see many destroyed. not 1 unless was from donbass years ago. clown, these are siege weapons that when the attack starts, hundreds of these will be like tank destroyers coming up to back clearing bunkers and emplacements. these aren't going up against any other tanks unless there jumping a few that fell behind.
Ukraine uses them better
Poetin is moving his T-62 tanks from the museum to the Donbas. 😃
Russia has enough tanks for 20 years of war. They're only using the T-62 because Ukraine doesn't have much in the way of modern anti tank weaponry, so the only way they're going to kill a T-62 is either with a side shot from something outdated like an RPG-7, which a T-72 or T-90 would also be destroyed by, or with one of their few modern anti tank weapons, in which case very few tanks in the world could survive a clean shot. So, why risk your modern, more expensive, vehicles when something old which was just draining your treasury by sitting in storage can do everything else the modern ones can? The protection differences aren't that much, so you're going to lose roughly the same amount of tanks for a given operation, so it only makes logical sense to decrease the long term cost of those losses
@@filmandfirearms say that again
@@filmandfirearms Nice propaganda for local russian usage. Sorry but not for the outside world. Also, T-62 was an export model while ussr government planned to use T-64 as more advanced tank that remained secret during cold war in case of actual wide scale warfare.
He’s sending T34,s now
@@filmandfirearms lmao you sound like a russian bot.
Meanwhile in Ukraine ....
Most army's have height restrictions for their soldiers. In Russia if too short they just say "Welcome to the World of Tanks". 😂
It was like that in all Warsaw Pact countries, since they all used Russian designed tanks (not necessarily built in Russia, ex. Poland was building its own version under license).
he was a bit of anti tank, he liked atgms.
to be honest that was smart thinking as we can see it right now in the russia-ukraine war, t-90s, t-80s, t-72s getting destroyed in hundreds cause of atgms, fgm-148 javelins, nlaws, rpgs, stugna-s P.
All that stuff makin records in Kill/Miss ratio.
the thing is, one squad of infantry can take out up to propably 5 modern tanks with the portable atgm systems and atgl's.
It must be a beast of a tank since it's being put back into service now:P
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
th-cam.com/video/LCZU1XdNb_E/w-d-xo.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
The Idea of sending the Leopard1 to Ukraine makes much more sense now.
min 1:40 - Nikita Khrushchev kinda he was a bit visionary if you look now what's happening in Ukraine where the NLAW, Stunga-P and Javelin are just storming the tanks there.
You know,the Russians might offer you a pretty penny for that tank as is ! I hear they're running short of them in Ukraine ! 😂😂😂
t62 electric boogaloo
Recent combat footage with a T-62M in Ukraine brought me here
The sad truth is that either NATO or the WARSAW Pact intended to attack each other. Both sides planned on massive nuclear retaliation if faced with an attack WW 2 style. Millions wasted for nothing.
Well those millions wasted did provide a massive boost to research and technology, shaping the high-tech world we live in today. The world wide web for instance was a project developed for the military.
Russia was thinking of invading the West, nukes was NATO option if starting to lose,
@@IvanIvanov-ey6de Sure but things like supersonic jets and tanks likely didn't do much for the civilian world as much as I do like them.
@@Gamelord191 Of course they did. Developing a supersonic jet or a tank means solving a lot of engineering problems, electronics, precise instruments, resource management, u name it. All of those can relate to civilian technologies. I see it as the military industrial complex being the basis for development of new techs. Serious research of new a technology requires a lot of effort, finance, equipment and scientists, and the military can provide all of that.
A flying drone was a kick starter project at first and the military saw interest into it. They took it over and developed it further into an attack drone. Civilian drones came later and got popular very fast, being used in film making or just as a hobby. They also got cheaper, so more people can afford them. A drones camera is sometimes more expensive than the drone itself! I know it is better to stop militarizing our society, stop the wars (there is always a local conflict going on somewhere on the globe) and head for our Moon again, or ideally colonize Mars. But we live in a monetary system today and in a monetary system - there is profit. And that is another story :)
@@demonprinces17 Yea, right. We always have been thinking about it. We still do. Hell, I'm thinking about it right now! When I drink beer I think of invading Germany. When I drink tea I think of invading England. I just cant sleep at night because I think about invading France.
Tell you what: when the world spoke French the Russians reached Paris, when the world spoke German the Russians reached Berlin. Now the world speaks English! Where shall the Russians end up this time?
So be afraid! Be very afraid!
P.S. We were not the first to develop nuclear weapons. There is only one country that have ever used them on civilian population 2 times and that aint us!
And now they are moving up to 130mm from 120mm it looks like the tank gun arms race is on again.
“Almost like a dictatorship”. Actually, more than just almost. And Stalin wasn’t deposed. He died in office.
16:25 tankers used to call those *Brezhnev's eyebrows*
I had a friend that was a tank driver in West Germany. The Army estimated there tanks would last about 10 minutes if the USSR launch an all out attack.
Little did he know how bad we could crush these tanks once we did fight them. Unless your talking pre1980s in that case it would have been a nasty fight.
My old boss was on a TOW team in West Germany and said his life expectancy was 90 seconds after firing.
@@taylorc2542 Those claims paint the Russian's as some sort of battlefield supermen who never miss and kill everything immediately that shoots at them. I heard the samething when I was in and being in the FDC we were told we had one minute and 30 seconds to live. I already knew as a private that was BS. I fire direction control for m109's. We shoot and move just like tanks. 90 seconds after firing we're a half mile down the road so unless they're pounding the entire grid area with the Russian version of a MLRS we were going to be fine. Personally I think that was just the military rumor mill and not based on a real Army study. If it was the study was crap. It wouldn't be the first time the US Military got it wrong. The WW2 Army boot because of it's poor design caused roughly 25% of all US non combat casualties in WW2 and then there's the Navy's Mark14 torpedo or the $1280 coffee cups the Air Force uses.
@@readhistory2023 you forgot the $7000 coffee makers on the B-52s. Why $7000 well, personally I don't know of any other coffee makers than can survive impacting the ground from 40,000 feet because the bomber it is in crashed.
@@readhistory2023
It more paints the Soviet bloc as being willing to just obliterate everything with massed artillery and sending enough material that troops stationed would not be able to hold. Which is fair. Like ok? You sit in your M109 in the 1980s, so what? The Soviets have their own Air Force and artillery raining on you. The tanks are just to make sure you’re dead.
Just a question David , what is your favourite tank?
T-54/55 I think. Depends on my mood.
@@daviddevries8242 lol
🌝I want to know how to effectively destroyed them.
при чем тут Хрущев. Ограничение веса танка было определено подвижностью танка,ж/д платформой, грузоподъемностью мостов.Кроме того вооружение среднего танка мощной пушкой сводило на нет все преимущества тяжелого танка
Truly the best museum for tanks and military history in general definitely worth visiting when you can
Another great video! With all the talk at the beginning about anti-tank guided missiles, I am surprised the IT-1 missile tank variant was not mentioned in the video. Maybe another time?
17:10 Deep wading looks...exciting. I'm guessing if you needed to evacuate the tank while doing this you'd have to flood the crew compartment and wait for the pressure to equalize before you could open the hatches.
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.