This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-62 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have tagged the article for use of self-published sources.
We also have a very heavy reliance on non-English-language sources here.
Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
Is this a T-62 ? Probably, T-62s were used in the Libyan Civil War (2011) -- Neun-x ( talk) 09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
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!
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)
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)
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)
They’re definitely there, see Forbes.— Ermenrich ( talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
Although the T-62 was replaced in Russia and the successor states of the Soviet Union, it is still used in some countriesreads 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)
Although it was replaced by later models in successor states of the Soviet Union, the T-62 remains in use by multiple other countries, and as reserve equipment in Russia. Design features of the T-62 became standardised in subsequent Soviet and Russian mass-produced tanks.
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)
Do not include or re-add this variant, the image is fake. Coobadge1 ( talk) 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-62 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have tagged the article for use of self-published sources.
We also have a very heavy reliance on non-English-language sources here.
Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
Is this a T-62 ? Probably, T-62s were used in the Libyan Civil War (2011) -- Neun-x ( talk) 09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
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!
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)
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)
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)
They’re definitely there, see Forbes.— Ermenrich ( talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
Although the T-62 was replaced in Russia and the successor states of the Soviet Union, it is still used in some countriesreads 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)
Although it was replaced by later models in successor states of the Soviet Union, the T-62 remains in use by multiple other countries, and as reserve equipment in Russia. Design features of the T-62 became standardised in subsequent Soviet and Russian mass-produced tanks.
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)
Do not include or re-add this variant, the image is fake. Coobadge1 ( talk) 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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)