Talk:T-62

T-62 production in Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakia didn't use T-62 nor produce it. There isn't any reference of czech/slovak origin which mentioned it (unlike T-34/54/55/72). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.48.24 (talk) 13:20, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find any data in the Czech Republic and Slovakia about production of T-62 in Czechoslovakia as is claimed by some western authors. But I found nothing - there isn't any company which mentiond any cooperation of T-62 production (unlike T-54/55 and especially T-72). Czechoslovakia only tested T-62 tank but refused it for high price and low update against T-55. Military archive in Prague completed this search by exposure of tanks that were produced in Czechoslovakia after ww2. T-62 is not listed there (they said that production of T-55 variants ended in 1983). So because there isn't any czecho/slovak reference (military or civil) about production of T-62 and actually military archive deny it I suspect that info about such production is myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.48.24 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a Polish website (This website is based on "Czołgi Świata" book by Igor Witkowski) and a discussion on Polish forum basing on which it is clear that Czechoslovakia continued T-62 production after USSR stopped it in 1975 for export only until 1978 (Most probably an order from USSR), the Czechoslovakian army didn't field them because of the reasons you pointed out: http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm and http://www.militarium.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=853&sid=5b41ead0d323ebf6daac4220112b4edd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the description of the T-62 as a "medium tank" to a "main battle tank", as that fits the tank better. "Medium tank" is more of a historical term than something that is used for modern tanks, as the distinction between heavy and medium tanks has all but disappeared.

--Martin Wisse 21:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Engine reliability
Soviet tank engines are hardly unreliable, though bulky. AllStarZ 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "unreliable" line. I can find no sources which confirmed that the T-62 powerpack was unreliable and I was led to belive that the Israelis changed the engines over in the interest of standardisation (it wasn't easy to get hold of Soviet spare parts in those days...) Getztashida 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zaloga (2004:15) writes "Soviet tanks were not particularly durable by NATO standards, since the Soviet design philosophy favored the manufacture of larger numbers of inexpensive tanks on the assumption that their life expectancy in modern warfare would be short." He goes on to describe the maintenance and rebuilding routine, and T-54/55 upgrade programs—in peacetime, only a small proportion of tanks was used for training and underwent regular capital rebuilding, while most stayed in storage and only underwent major rebuilding or upgrade every decade or so.  As I understand it, the plan for a Cold War conflict in Europe was to pull thousands of relatively new tanks out of war stores, drive them on light maintenance until they break or are disabled in battle, then send them to major overhaul depots to be quickly refurbished and reissued to newly-formed units, keeping front-line maintenance facilities light.


 * In light of this, it may be reasonable to assume that the Israelis considered them unreliable. —Michael Z. 2006-12-18 03:27 Z 

Operators Section
Why does this article not do as the T-55 article does, or in fact as most tank articles do, and list the numbers provided originally to each nation and if they have been retired, then put a note beside the number saying so (specifically regarding Ukraine in the listing). Wikipedia is also suppossed to share and preserve the past, not only the current. If it is possible to post the data for the Ukraine, will someone please do so.SAWGunner89 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a source with the information you want to see, then be bold. —Michael Z. 2007-07-07 00:15 Z 

Some of the operators mentioned never had the T-62, for instance Albania and East-Germany. The former only had the Chinese light tank Type 62, which is often listed as "T-62" in some sources (same with the Type 59 which is very often listed as T-59 etc.). dendirrek 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

gunners
In the tank info template at the right, it says that there are two gunners. Is one of them supposed to be the commander or are there really two gunners? Elfalem 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right—I'll fix it. —Michael Z. 2007-08-10 15:59 Z 

Albanian T-62 tanks
I noticed that Albania has been added again as T-62 operator. The statement that Albania uses/used T-62 is wrong and ridiculous. T-62 went into production in 1961 while at the same time as an result of the Soviet-Sino split Albania stopped supporting the Warsaw pact and from that time forward was supplied by PRC not by USSR. Just like Dendirrek said above, Albania utilized Chinese Type 62 light tank which was often listed as "T-62" in some sources just like Type 59 which was listed as T-59.

Because of those reasons I removed Albania from the Operators section.

If you think you have a proof that Albania did utilize T-62 then please contact me on my talk page. Thank you for understanding. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

U-8ST tank gun
I have a cuestion ¿which caliber uses the U-8ST tank gun? ¿is it a 100 mm? because its development is before to the captured of the iranian M60 Patton in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.143.251 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Technicals"
Just a reminder that unreferenced content may be fact-tagged by any editor, and if no reference is provided it may be deleted. I am not questioning whether technicals were used against tanks; simply noticed that it has been fact-tagged since Nov 07 and no reference has been provided. It cannot stay in the article without reference after a cite request goes unanswered. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes however I removed the parts that may or may not be true or sound biased and left only the part about the technicals which is a fact.


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. I am not questioning the truth of your edit; I don't care one way or the other. I'm asking for a citation. Verifiability and truth are two different things. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

English-language sources
According to wikipedia policy, on the english wiki we should have english-language sources. Recent edits are based on Polish sources. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it the fault of the Polish sources that the English sources that we know of are incomplete? Like if you couldn't get another Polish to translate this to you so you will be sure about what's written there. Oh and BTW what happened to free online translators? Did they disappeared from the face of the Earth? Didn't Google recently include a translation option? Oh so you're saying they translate everything into garbage which is unreadable? Well sorry to disappoint you but I use those translators to translate texts in Russian and it works fine for me and I can make sense out of the whole text (even if sometimes the words are incorrectly translated I can still understand the entire sentence).


 * Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am telling you what the policy is; there's no need to attack. If you don't like the policy, make your case to change it. In the meantime I suggest you follow it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking. I just pointing out that this part of the policy is arrogant. It's like saying "We [English native speakers] are the best and every source that doesn't agree with our [English language] sources is untrue!"... Sorry to break to you and other English native speakers but some English sources that I find on the topic of Soviet/Russian AFVs are almost completely untrue. It's the same way as if you would defy Russian sources because many of them aren't translated yet. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's not the point of the policy at all. The point is verifiability. Again, if you think the policy is flawed, work to change it, but until it does we are all bound to follow it. This is why there are new citation request tags. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove citation requests without citing a source. That's a violation of wikipedia policy. Thanks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you even care to notice that I've done so? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

National variant of English
This article is written with a mix of British and American English. We should pick one or the other. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuito Cuanavale
The article refers to the T-62 as the "most powerful tank used in that conflict" and refers to the outcome of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale as a "victory" for Cuba. Given that the outcome of the battle is disputed and that both sides claim victory, the section's current wording does not represent a neutral point of view but is instead slanted towards the official Cuban government narrative of the battle. I don't think that there should be any qualitative comparison between the T-62 and the Olifant (or any other tank for that matter) unless it's backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.242.126 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Felt I should add something here, now that I've added some additional information concerning the Angolan conflict to the article. Both the Angolan military (FAPLA) and the Cuban military operated T-62s, and although these were used sometimes interchangeably they still belonged to separate units in separate armies. All of the Angolan T-62s remained in the rear during Cuito Cuanavale and took no part in the actual fighting against the South African Defence Force. Their only "baptism of fire" was during the ill-fated offensives against UNITA between 1985 and Operation Moduler in 1987.


 * A battalion of Cuban T-62s - around 30 - were at Cuito and according to the Russian source cited here, had to be rushed there from a port city where they were apparently assigned to a static security role. Due to the intense level of sabotage undertaken by both UNITA and South African Recces this was quite common. Standard FAPLA/Cuban SOP was to use T-55s, which the inadequate South African armoured cars could only destroy with multiple hits anyway, on the front line and keep the relatively prized T-62s in reserve for a real emergency closer to the capital (ie typically African coup d'etat) or a major industrial centre. Hence why T-62s did next to none of the tank on tank fighting; for this reason it didn't really make a big impact. The South Africans only reported encountering T-55s, and at Cuito only T-55s were damaged or destroyed.


 * The true effect the T-62 had was psychological, as the tank's very presence on any battlefield certainly impressed the South African armoured crews. Beyond the ZT3 missile and Olifant, of which they had precious few on hand at the time, they simply had no means of dealing with them. -- Katan gais (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thin armour?
In the limitations sections it is stated that T-62 had "thin armor". I'm not sure where does this come from (no source?), but this is not true. You can clearly see that it's armor was similar to the M-60A1, yet M-60 armor is never considered thin in M-60 article. Also, only some soviet heavy tanks of the era (T-10 for example) had considerably better armor. No NATO tanks had. I suggest dropping this fictional issue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.77 (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source
I have reason to believe that one of the sources cited has some inaccurate information. My problem lies with the following statement in the article: "In January 1961, an Iranian officer defected with his new US-made M60A1 main battle tank across the border into the Soviet Union.[6]" The cited source is listed as 'Zaloga 2004, p 13.' Firstly, I was under the impression that the A1 version of the M60 was not adopted until about 1962 or 63, and I would question as to why the U.S. would send its latest tank to Iran (though friendly at the time) when presumably, its own forces would not have been fully equipped with that tank yet. As further evidence, while scanning through a book on the T62 ('T-62 Main Battle Tank 1965-2005') by Zaloga, he mentions that the 105mm gun used on the French AMX 30 tank is a smoothbore (Zaloga Pg 6), when it is in fact a rifled weapon. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in T-62
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of T-62's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "zimstudy": From Eland Mk7:  From Zimbabwe:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Service history#Libya
Is a T-62 ? Probably, T-62s were used in the Libyan Civil War (2011) --Neun-x (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

_Only_ 70% hit probability?
In section "Limitations" is stated that "The T-62 ... had the Meteor stabilizer but it only gave a 70% hit probability at 1.000 moving at 20 km/h..." Well, the M60 finally recieved gun stabilizaton in form of the add-on package in 1972 (ten years later). --Markscheider (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The same information is provided earlier in the article, making it redundant, and since there is no comparison to other systems of the era, the "only" seems unnecessary. I'd suggest removing the stabiliser part in "Limitations". (Hohum @ ) 12:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Limitations" again
In section "Limitations" it is stated that "Opening the ejection port under NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) conditions would expose the crew to contamination." Although Globalsecurity is cited as source, i would object. This is because under NBC conditions, the interior of the tank will be run with overpressure air. If the hatch for the spent cartridge opens up, there will be air flow from inside to to outside, effectively preventing contaminated air from gettin' inside. That's how the systems was designed and unless defunct, will function.--Markscheider (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source which supports what you say for this tank. (Hohum @ ) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * --Markscheider (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cubatanques.jpg

"Opening the ejection port under NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) conditions would expose the crew to contamination."
Nice tall tale. To give the U.S. readers a song and dance about it, huh? Total bollocks!

The ventilation system of the NBC system (ever heard of it?) maintains an overpressure(!) inside the tank when it is activated, what it is in case of nuclear, biological or chemical conditions! Would you be so kind as to explain how air from outside could overcome an overpressure from a pressurised interior cell? That's exactly how the Leopard 2's NBC system works as well: with mere overpressure inside, to prevent air from outside contaminating the interior of the tank! The opening of the ejection port of a T-62 would allow the air to rush out rather than into the tank. So, stop spreading this pile of hippo dung, if you don't know what you're talking about. You must have missed out on some physics classes, thus you rather want to keep your hands off Wikipedia! And the internet in general. Go to school instead, should keep you busy for a while and prevent you from spreading this horseshit all over the net. Still. How dumb are you? Effing U.S. propaganda victims. And if you keep asking for a source: physics! Basic physics! Elementary school! Ever attended one? https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html Greetings from a former Leopard 2 commander!

Tiran 6 had still the 115 mm guns!
I found an article about the Tiran-6 modification, wrote by Filippo Cappellano on Panorama Difesa (feb 1993); it claims that no change in the gun was made by israelis. Not only this, the photos in this article are clear: the Tiran-6 depicted is actually armed with a 115 mm gun and NOT a M68/L7 one (see the fume extractor position and dimensions). Therefore i modify the assumption about the Tiran-6 with 105 mm as it is cleary wrong. Regs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The hull width is questionable
Battlefield Vegas have a T55 & a T62 and they say that the T62's hull is a foot wider, and it looks it. Can somebody please double-check these measurements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrector2021 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine
This tank is all over the war, this article seems not to have heard that. 63.155.109.42 (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Except from claims made by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (which in itself is a propaganda until proven), there's no concrete evidence (if yet) of the tanks used in current Ukraine conflict. Jauhsekali (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros/status/1529484502648619009 150.254.210.17 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is fake news. No one has seen this tanks in Ukraine, except for some social media video, beeing transport by rail. Some other ppl on social media claim this video is an old one and it shows T-62's allegedly going to Syria. Did anyone take note that these tanks do not show the letters "Z" or "V", which in my opinion is another hint that these vids an pics don't belong to the ukraine war. Just my 2 cents. Markscheider (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the tanks are geolocated in melitopol and to my understanding there has been no Russian t-62 transported through this town before the war. Conclusion - these Russian tanks transported recently through occupied territories. No way Russia would transport tanks to Syria through the town when it has safer docks in south Russia to send them to Syria. The absence of marks doesn't tell anything - you can apply them in 2 minutes. I think it's reasonable to say that these tanks are for ru or DNR/LNR army. 31.23.0.164 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that an month has passed: has anyone seen one of those tanks participating in combat? Markscheider (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there are some interesting videos on social media, but this is definitely not a reliable source. Waiting for a confirmation from RU MoD. 213.3.18.83 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's if you consider the Russian MoD a reliable source...
 * We have now seen quite a lot of the tank in Ukraine, so time answered this question. 91.125.151.0 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

They’re definitely there, see Forbes.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

T-62 use in article body not significant enough for mention in lead
I have removed the section in the lead which mentions T-62 usage in the lead. The lead should be a summary of article contents. There isn't enough coverage in the article to warrant it being mentioned in the lead. I used the edit comment "Rv, lead should be appropriate summary of article, this has very little covereage in the article. Grandstanding".

I was reverted with the comment "Revert after revert with nonsensical justification."

Hopefully I have made my reasoning clearer, and seek a third opinion. (Hohum @ ) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I will reinstate it ASAP as it stands the header is inaccurate. It become typical for lots of Wikipedia editors to put their personal style preferences over accuracy and utility. The reactivation is the single most important thing in recent history. If there is a problem it the lack of information about it. You made up some new rule about not repeating stuff but leaving lots of other repeated stuff in the heading. What you did is vandalism pure and simple and your talk page comment is hypocrisy. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
 * WP:Recentism and particularly WP:10YEARTEST also apply.
 * I also ask you to act in a more collegiate manner per WP:AGF. (Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 13:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is you that is uncollegiate with your vandalism, I ask you to act in a less pompous way. As I said it is typical of editors like you that they put some minor rules above accuracy. You didn't AGF when you reverted my change, you didn't go to the talk page you just removed it. With a nonsensical claim that the header is allowed to make inaccurate claims, ff it fits in with your shallow interpretation of a rule. The most important content use and the frankly amazing news is that after many years it was brought back into front-line service with a major power. That it has very little coverage in the article is a problem which you choose not to fix but instead, of fixing it you chose to revert so as not to break your irrelevant rule because to you that is far more important than utility and accuracy. The 5th pillar of Wikipedia was designed to copy with rule obsessives but they seem to have infiltrated the system anyway Five_pillars and in this being used to circumvent the quest for verifiable accuracy also mentioned in the pillars.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * T-62 usage in Ukraine (2+ months long) seems minor overall in the tank's career to cover in the Lead at this point, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Coming as a complete outsider (summoned from WT:MILHIST), I don't think there's a huge need for the lede to mention the usage as part of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in specific. At the same time, the current lede's phrasing of Although the T-62 was replaced in Russia and the successor states of the Soviet Union, it is still used in some countries reads to me as "it is not used by Russia," which appears to directly contradict § 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the minimum, that sentence should be rephrased to eliminate that inconsistency. - Ljleppan (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about something like this?
 * - Ljleppan (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me and is a good balance, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction - captured by Israel from Syria
In the beginning of the article, under 'Foreign Service' / 'Israel', the article states that " .. The Israelis captured hundreds of these tanks from the Syrians in 1973 .. ". Further down, under 'Variants' / 'Israel', the article states that " .. Israel captured a small number of Syrian T-62s and made limited adaptions for Israeli service .. ".

'Hundreds' and 'small number' are a big contradiction to each other. How many T62 were truly captured by Israel from Syria? As a minimum, 120 T-62 have been converted into Tiran-6.

I suggest to edit the second part and to change 'small number' into '.. over 120 ..'. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/08/10/Israeli-division-of-captured-Soviet-tanks/7901524030400/#:~:text=Israeli%20forces%20captured%20more%20than,division%20of%20300%20of%20them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.140.210 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

T-62M "Obr. 2023"
Do not include or re-add this variant, the image is fake. Coobadge1 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ob'yekt, Obiekt, Object
Did I miss a version?

What's the point in keeping all these versions? --2003:EA:E703:88FC:947A:3D9:20E0:D7CC (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)