T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor

[Caliga]

Raz is right, Old Sir Hockey reference from EUOT.  Goddamn, that was a funny ass thread when he was busted six ways out of his ass, and never came back.

No, he came back... as his 'brother'.

[Ideologue]

I figured you'd enjoy my take on this thread.

I did.

I've had to let go of two Army guys and a Marine within the last year and a half.
All my zoomies have stayed, because they comprehend advanced programming concepts like Outlook.

[Mr.Penguin]

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun. 

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

[11B4V]

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun. 

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

[Mr.Penguin]

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun. 

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...   

[11B4V]

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun. 

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...

Yip

[Mr.Penguin]

It's a POS due to the main gun ejection system. The Israelis proved how good a tank it was not. Hell they even replaced the gun. 

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

Read up on the ejection system.

Yes, I know about the ejection system. Like the rest of the Tank poorly build, with the result that it couldn't always be trusted to eject the empty shell casing, but instead have it bounce around in the crew compartment...

Yip

And properly one of the reasons that the Israelis said "nice gun, but we prefer our 105mm L7 gun with it's manual ejection"... 

[Martim Silva]

We here in Portugal had a similar issue some years back. One of our retired generals was eventually proven by the media never to have served in the military at all.

Worse of all was that "he" also turned out to be, in fact, a "she".

Humiliating.

Well, as far as I remember wasn't it the gun that was the problem, it was quite ok for its time and the Israelis did use the T-62 with its original 115mm main gun, it wasn't until later that they replaced the main gun the standard 105mm L7 gun. The Israelis simply considered the T-62 to a much less reliable Tank that the T-55, it was poorly build, a result of to much cost cutting in order to supply it as cheaply as possible to client stats...

The T-62 ended up being destined mostly for the export market. The real tank of the Union for the 60's was the T-64, which introduced the autoloader.

[DGuller]

You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.

[11B4V]

You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.

Crap, Crap, Crap. I can and will.

[grumbler]

You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.

The Sherman was hit often, which is why it burned so often.  The myth is that it burned often because of its uniquely gasoline-driven engine.  The fact is that pretty much everyone bar the Soviets (and even the Soviets prior to the T-34) used gasoline-powered engines until late war (and even then continued to produce gas-powered light tanks like the T-70).  Everyone who had gasoline-powered AFVs saw them burn.  The Sherman was no worse than the others, just more famous.

[Razgovory]

The T-62 ended up being destined mostly for the export market. The real tank of the Union for the 60's was the T-64, which introduced the autoloader.

The Russians couldn't even reliably build the T-64 and as such they were never very numerous.  The real tank of the Warsaw pact remained the T-54/T-55/T-62 tanks which remained the most common tank in the Soviet inventory until it's collapse.

[Ideologue]

Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?

[Razgovory]

Did they ever manage to make an autoloader that worked?

The Russians operated a different way then we do.  If the US government purchased some tanks that would periodically tear off the arms of crew members we would consider it a failure.  The Russians would be fine with this, and consider it merely the price of doing business.  I don't consider the Russians incompetent, just differently competent.

An illustrative example:  An American and a Russian are both given one of those little toy sets were you hammer a specially shaped peg through a specially shaped hole.  The American looks around and finds a specific peg to fit a specific hole then hammers it in.  The Russian just grabs the nearest peg and hammers it into the nearest hole.  After enough hammering the peg does go through the hole.  Or at least most of it.  The Russian considers this an acceptable outcome.  The end result is the same, the peg goes through the hole.  The American simply uses finesse while the Russian relies on brute force.

[DGuller]

You can't call a tank crap just because of one flaw.  By that standard, M4 Sherman is crap just because it had the flaw of always exploding on contact with enemy ordnance.

The Sherman was hit often, which is why it burned so often.  The myth is that it burned often because of its uniquely gasoline-driven engine.  The fact is that pretty much everyone bar the Soviets (and even the Soviets prior to the T-34) used gasoline-powered engines until late war (and even then continued to produce gas-powered light tanks like the T-70).  Everyone who had gasoline-powered AFVs saw them burn.  The Sherman was no worse than the others, just more famous.

It wasn't the gasoline that burned often, it was the ammo that burned often.