Whoever did the illustrations for the T62's manual @0.51 all I can say is hats off. Usually manual illustrations aren't so well rendered. That's Franklin Booth levels of line work.
Soviet Union had a LOT of flaws, but one thing the Red Army understood was that it didn't have the most educated or literate conscripts, so they put a lot of effort into good reference pictures in their manuals to help people really see the things they needed to see. The Red Army also understood that its printers were not the most consistent, so they favored high-contrast drawings, rather than photographs, in manuals to ensure that a fuzzy print didn't lose necessary detail. Experience in the Great Patriotic War told the USSR that it was very important that one be able to produce most any war materiel, including tanks and manuals for tanks, right on the frontlines, because there was no certainty that one could ship the materiel from safer rear areas.
@igorpniak8308 wtf? You are saying that the entire Block is alcoholic? Man... instead saying that why you don't points their educational flaws instead to say they're a bunch of drunk people.
@@genericpersonx333 what??? after 1920's the illiteracy part is a meme... there were school's for schools and academy's upon academy's from civil use to army to agriculture..
Very informative. I didn't know that the tank was actually well designed for the period. Most documentaries just dismissed the tank as a 'trashy commie tank' without giving in-depth analysis of the vehicle.
I think it's a decent tank. You can always pack more stuff on it but the UdSSR needed a lot of them so they needed to compromise in some areas. Good tank.
Emmm... Nah. Not really. Apart from the Soviets, nobody wanted this tank. All countries of the Warsaw Pact went into modernized T-54/55. The perception of it was "a stop-gap makeshift tank with more weight and unchanged engine output." In reality, it was a very front-heavy vehicle. A rather slow with the stabilized gun that was stabilized only on paper. Everyone wanted the new Morozov design. China adopted the design in 1969 I guess (they reverse-engineered it from the captured piece), but they did not have a lot of other options.
In some videos, the extra armor can be seen, the "Breshnevs eyebrows" for the turret, and the glasis and front bottom armor. They add about 3-4 tons of weight. The T-55 my brother and I have have those as it is Polish AM Merida model. Starting steep uphill is no problem if using that steering reduction when starting, just release the clutch and tank goes up if there is traction. Some armies, like Finnish Defence Forces here in Finland, used wrong oil in the transmission, and that made all kinds of problems. The transmission should use heavy engine oil, single stage SAE 60W (same as the engine), and using GL-4 multi grade transmission oil has caused all kinds of problems, as the syncromesh does not like "too slippery" oil, and the gear system needs to be braked down with heavy oil to help shift to non-syncromeshed First and Reverse; if the main clutch does not disengage completely, the main axle turns too fast and shifting turns to grinding. The multi-disc dry main clutch is the weak point of the drive train adjustment-wise . The oil capasity of the transmission is supposed to be 13 litres, but adding couple of more litres helps things a lot. And, everything smells diesel and "tank"; it has it's own smell that is hard to describe.
I agree this is an interesting vehicle as it was used in Vietnam and Iraq etc. I understand the early models weren't standardised so there are all sorts of variants.
T-34 was the best tank soviets could build in thousands. They could switch over to T-44 which is a fucking excellent tank (and granddad of T-62) but that would mean stopping production for months so they chose to stick it's turret onto T-34 instead.
Whoever did the illustrations for the T62's manual @0.51 all I can say is hats off. Usually manual illustrations aren't so well rendered. That's Franklin Booth levels of line work.
Soviet Union had a LOT of flaws, but one thing the Red Army understood was that it didn't have the most educated or literate conscripts, so they put a lot of effort into good reference pictures in their manuals to help people really see the things they needed to see.
The Red Army also understood that its printers were not the most consistent, so they favored high-contrast drawings, rather than photographs, in manuals to ensure that a fuzzy print didn't lose necessary detail. Experience in the Great Patriotic War told the USSR that it was very important that one be able to produce most any war materiel, including tanks and manuals for tanks, right on the frontlines, because there was no certainty that one could ship the materiel from safer rear areas.
@genericpersonx333 I don't think so, Soviet union, Had less than 2% porcent of analfalbetism. But I like their approach to Illustrate the Tanks.
@@andreisouzabento7506You can be able to read and write, but that doesn't mean you are astute. That's what centuries of alkoholism and poverty do.
@igorpniak8308 wtf? You are saying that the entire Block is alcoholic? Man... instead saying that why you don't points their educational flaws instead to say they're a bunch of drunk people.
@@genericpersonx333 what??? after 1920's the illiteracy part is a meme... there were school's for schools and academy's upon academy's from civil use to army to agriculture..
Nice video. Hope for another part with modernisation and variants explanation.
Balloon was NOT spying...🤔
ruclips.net/video/zgWv3kXUn10/видео.html
Very informative. I didn't know that the tank was actually well designed for the period. Most documentaries just dismissed the tank as a 'trashy commie tank' without giving in-depth analysis of the vehicle.
Been looking forward to this entry, didn’t realize this was uploaded less than hour ago!
I think it's a decent tank. You can always pack more stuff on it but the UdSSR needed a lot of them so they needed to compromise in some areas. Good tank.
Emmm... Nah. Not really. Apart from the Soviets, nobody wanted this tank. All countries of the Warsaw Pact went into modernized T-54/55. The perception of it was "a stop-gap makeshift tank with more weight and unchanged engine output." In reality, it was a very front-heavy vehicle. A rather slow with the stabilized gun that was stabilized only on paper. Everyone wanted the new Morozov design.
China adopted the design in 1969 I guess (they reverse-engineered it from the captured piece), but they did not have a lot of other options.
@@HanSolo__ You do understand all of your mobility arguments are demolished in the video itself?
Wow, the level of detail is very impressive. Excellent work 👍
Some interesting info on the steering system in this video. Had no idea the tank had such capabilities.
In some videos, the extra armor can be seen, the "Breshnevs eyebrows" for the turret, and the glasis and front bottom armor. They add about 3-4 tons of weight. The T-55 my brother and I have have those as it is Polish AM Merida model. Starting steep uphill is no problem if using that steering reduction when starting, just release the clutch and tank goes up if there is traction.
Some armies, like Finnish Defence Forces here in Finland, used wrong oil in the transmission, and that made all kinds of problems. The transmission should use heavy engine oil, single stage SAE 60W (same as the engine), and using GL-4 multi grade transmission oil has caused all kinds of problems, as the syncromesh does not like "too slippery" oil, and the gear system needs to be braked down with heavy oil to help shift to non-syncromeshed First and Reverse; if the main clutch does not disengage completely, the main axle turns too fast and shifting turns to grinding. The multi-disc dry main clutch is the weak point of the drive train adjustment-wise . The oil capasity of the transmission is supposed to be 13 litres, but adding couple of more litres helps things a lot. And, everything smells diesel and "tank"; it has it's own smell that is hard to describe.
Nice technical description of the mechanicals and implications of design choices. Lots of stuff I haven't heard elsewhere. Very well done.
1800m-not 18 thousand
Please make a video on YW531 Type 63 APC
I agree this is an interesting vehicle as it was used in Vietnam and Iraq etc. I understand the early models weren't standardised so there are all sorts of variants.
@@ianlarge9016and no body made a video on it. Thats why I have been uploading content so that someone will make a video on it.
18,000 meters! Wow! Crazy metric system...
🤣🤣18 HUNDRED meters is 1,8km
18 HUNDRED meters. Numbers mean things.
I suppose the Bundeswehr used T-62 captured by Israel in the Yom Kippur war in those 1974 tests.
half life 2 music at the start, Nova Prospekt
16:56 looks like a NI tank variant, the one in Odessa. It may not be 100% legit, since the real ones were presumably destroyed.
Not at all legit but, yes, it is a very bad mockup of an Odessa tank
How many of this tank were in Syrian and Egyptian army during 1973 war .. comparing to the older ones?
04:00 Main diff is how fast the gun moves. On you.
5:55 should be eighteen hundred meters, not eighteen thousand meters
Loved the video though
You got to give some respect to the Russians, they do make decent tanks. Excluding the T-14 Armata since it's a failed concept.
The russians make good design just wanted the cheapest but effective one
Was this an AI voice?
Doesn't appear so, since the narrator also did the sound editing.
No, he sounds like this in every other video hes voiced
T-34 best tank ever built
Nah, saying this as a T-34 lover, it was not
T-34 was the best tank soviets could build in thousands. They could switch over to T-44 which is a fucking excellent tank (and granddad of T-62) but that would mean stopping production for months so they chose to stick it's turret onto T-34 instead.