Talk:T-62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal T-62 is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

Contents 1 T-62 production in Czechoslovakia 2 Engine reliability 3 Operators Section 4 gunners 5 Albanian T-62 tanks 6 U-8ST tank gun 7 "Technicals" 8 English-language sources

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)