Talk:T-62

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  T-62 production in Czechoslovakia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Operators Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Albanian T-62 tanks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  U-8ST tank gun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National variant of English

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thin armour? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:T-62]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Service history#Libya 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  _Only_ 70% hit probability?  

message: 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)
replies: text: Find a reliable source which supports what you say for this tank. (Hohum @) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Markscheider (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Limitations" again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tiran 6 had still the 115 mm guns!  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The hull width is questionable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction - captured by Israel from Syria 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ob'yekt, Obiekt, Object