Russian T-62A Tank by CDW - Tamiya - 1/35 Scale FINISHED

[CDW]

Auxiliary fuel tanks added.

I have opted for an aftermarket set of individual track links to replace the “rubber band” tracks included with the Tamiya kit. A cheap but effective upgrade I think.

 

 

[Egilman]

3 hours ago, CDW said:

Next, the entire model is given a light wash/filter of light rust.

 

Excellent wash job, a fairly new issue T-62, paint showing a bit of fade and the rust just beginning to show... Typical cheap soviet paint job...

 

Maybe 8-9 months in the storage yard under the brutal Nizhny Tagil (Russian tank storage farm) sun....

[CDW]

Just now, Egilman said:

Typical cheap soviet paint job...

 

The Russians manufacture these tanks at just a small fraction of the cost of a Western-made tank. No wonder they fill the arsenals of so many armies throughout the world. Think "AK-47", cheap, loose fitting, but they darn sure get the job done in even the worst conditions.

[mikegr]

On 7/7/2022 at 4:09 AM, Old Collingwood said:

If any of  you guys are  crossing the pond or even coming over to the Uk  - I deffo  suggest a day at the Tank Museum  its that good, Superb exhibits  a fantastic  shop  (where you can stock up on your tank models)  and a good  rest/food area  with  rest rooms.

 

OC.

i really hope one day to visit back London and tour the RAF Museum, HMS Belfast and the Naval Museum nearby.

[popeye the sailor]

really nice looking tank    there are a lot of different 'motorized' kits out there......some have the gearbox and the motor,  and some just has the gearbox.  on the one I did,  the gearbox was plastic and didn't hold up very well,  and neither did the remote.  great paint job!

[CDW]

5 hours ago, popeye the sailor said:

really nice looking tank    there are a lot of different 'motorized' kits out there......some have the gearbox and the motor,  and some just has the gearbox.  on the one I did,  the gearbox was plastic and didn't hold up very well,  and neither did the remote.  great paint job!

Thanks Denis. The new releases of these old kit molds no longer have any of the running gear hardware included, but the cost is just a shade more than $20 retail. A very decent model for low cost.

[CDW]

With the tracks in place, I am ready to move onto the decals, detailing and weathering phase of the build.

Nice thing about individual track links is that it allows the tracks to sag where the real ones sagged. It’s possible to achieve that with the rubber band tracks as well but individual links makes it a little easier.

 

 

[CDW]

The low profile of the T-62 made it a more difficult target to acquire and hit. Sitting next to the M3 and M4 makes the low profile show out.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by CDW
grammar

[CDW]

A few interesting facts about the T-62:

 

When this tank was introduced in 1961, Western countries (NATO) were at the height of the cold war with the former Soviet Union. Several unique design features were incorporated into the tank.

 

*** The tank was designed to operate fully submerged during river crossings up to 14' in depth.

*** All hatches were designed to be water and airtight.

*** An air filtration system was employed to make the tank operational (supposedly) on battle fields that were contaminated with radioactive fallout from tactical nuclear weapons.

*** Because of the low-profile design of the turret, a hatch was designed to eject an empty shell casing each time a round was fired, in order to save space inside the fighting compartment of the tank.

*** The 115 mm main gun was the first smooth bore gun employed on a Soviet tank. The gun was designed to penetrate and destroy the armor of the US M-60 and British Centurian battle tanks. The gun fired a projectile with folding stabilizers that deployed after firing.

 

 

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, CDW said:

A few interesting facts about the T-62

And one more added, Israeli M-51 Ishermans using 90mm DU rounds destroyed them wholesale....  {chuckle}

[CDW]

Just now, Egilman said:

And one more added, Israeli M-51 Ishermans using 90mm DU rounds destroyed them wholesale....  {chuckle}

Negative. You're maybe thinking of T-54's and T-55 losses. The T-62 didn't suffer combat losses until the Soviet - Afghan war in the 80's 

[Egilman]

2 hours ago, CDW said:

Negative. You're maybe thinking of T-54's and T-55 losses. The T-62 didn't suffer combat losses until the Soviet - Afghan war in the 80's 

Sorry Brother, they were first employed in the Sino-Soviet war of 1969, they were first employed in large quantities in the 1973 Yom Kippur War by both Syria and Egypt in which the Israeli's destroyed or captured 100's of them (especially from the Syrians) It is where the Israeli's got their supply of them, they converted them into the Tiran 3's & 6's... It is also where the US Army got their supply of them from...

 

They did well against the M-48's and Chieftain's of the main Israeli armored forces, when attacking, but fared very badly against the Isherman equipped reserves when forced to defend themselves...

[CDW]

Just now, Egilman said:

Sorry Brother, they were first employed in the Sino-Soviet war of 1969, they were first employed in large quantities in the 1973 Yom Kippur War by both Syria and Egypt in which the Israeli's destroyed or captured 100's of them (especially from the Syrians) It is where the Israeli's got their supply of them, they converted them into the Tiran 3's & 6's... It is also where the US Army got their supply of them from...

 

They did well against the M-48's and Chieftain's of the main Israeli armored forces, when attacking, but fared very badly against the Isherman equipped reserves when forced to defend themselves...

Perhaps the chart I referenced pertains only to Soviet operated T-62's, but it clearly states their losses occurred first in the Afghan conflict. Since looking further, I found where Israel indeed captured hundreds of Syrian tanks in '73 as you said. Further, that Israel put unmodified T-62's into their own service renaming them the Tiran 6. I have not found a combat record for the M-51 vs: T-62.

 

Soviet Union[edit]

The T-62 entered service with the Soviet Army in July 1961. Because of the firepower of the new 115 mm gun, it was considered to be a formidable tank for the time, despite its drawbacks.^[2][3] Along with the T-55, the T-62 was one of the most common tanks in the Soviet inventory. The two tanks together once comprised approximately 85% of the Soviet army's tanks. Later in the 1970s, the T-62 was rendered obsolete and was put into reserve service. The T-72 and T-80 later succeeded it.

Sino-Soviet border conflict[edit]

 

 

A T-62 tank captured by the PLA during the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict.

The T-62 saw combat for the first time during the 1969 Sino–Soviet border conflict during which one was disabled and captured by the People's Liberation Army. The T-62 (No. 545) was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the Type-56 (Chinese copy of RPG-2) RPG launcher on the morning of 15 March 1969 during a PLA counterattack. The RPG penetrated the left side of the hull, killing the driver.^{[citation needed]} This tank was later studied and the information gathered from those studies was used for the development of the Type 69 main battle tank.^[24]

Soviet–Afghan War[edit]

 

 

A Soviet T-62M of the "Berlin" tank regiment which was a part of the 5th Guards Motor Rifle Division, leaving Afghanistan, 1 January 1987

During the Soviet–Afghan War, the T-62 was a primary tank used by the Soviet army. The Soviets used tanks in several ways, with the use of many in fire support bases, while other were employed for convoy protection or as infantry support. Towards the end of the war T-62Ms, using the BDD appliqué armour, appeared in large numbers. According to US sources, nearly 325 T-62s fell victim to Mujahideen attacks, especially from anti-tank land mines and RPGs.^[25] Others fell into the hands of the Afghan Mujahideen after they were left behind by withdrawing Soviet forces.^[26]

The USSR officially confirmed the loss of 147 T-62 and T-55 tanks during the war.

Losses of Soviet tanks by year^[27]

Year	Number of tanks lost
1979	1
1980	18
1981	28
1982	17
1983	13
1984	7
1985	18
1986	14
1987	7
1988	22
1989	2

 

It's interesting to note that in the Iraq - Iran war, Iraqi T-62's destroyed Iranian Chieftans and M-60's at a rate of more than 4:1

 

I was unable to locate an internet source for the combat record of I-51's vs: T-62's. However, I am inclined to believe Israeli success is more a matter of a higher trained, better qualified fighting force (and tactics) vs: their counterparts; rather than superior equipment.    

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, CDW said:

It's interesting to note that in the Iraq - Iran war, Iraqi T-62's destroyed Iranian Chieftans and M-60's at a rate of more than 4:1

 

I was unable to locate an internet source for the combat record of I-51's vs: T-62's. However, I am inclined to believe Israeli success is more a matter of a higher trained, better qualified fighting force (and tactics) vs: their counterparts; rather than superior equipment.    

Definitely, The T-62 was superior to any modern tank at the time it was introduced, especially in the spearhead overrun breakthrough type tactics... It's introduction pushed the development of the M-60... 

 

Modern Tanks are designed for the spearhead role which is the most effective use of them... They basically suck at defensive roles, that's why the Isherman's had such an easy time of it with them...  Even the M-1 Abrams, they only lost one in Desert Storm, in the occupation they lost 70... Tanks are not defensive weapons... Tactics, how they are used makes all the difference...

 

Modern Cavalry...

[CDW]

With the decals added and the bulk of the detail and weathering I wanted to add, am about ready to lay down a coat of Matt clear to seal and unify the finish. after that, I may add a few more weathering details and maybe add the commander as well.

 

 

[CDW]

[Old Collingwood]

Looking Superb.

 

OC.

[mtaylor]

3 hours ago, Egilman said:

Tanks are not defensive weapons... Tactics, how they are used makes all the difference...

They might get away for a short time being "hull down" but they're still an inviting target.  Tanks were basically useless in Vietnam due to not being able to maneuver.  In combat they had a survival time of just a bit longer than the APC's.  

[CDW]

From my stash of models, I intend to build most of the Soviet and Russians tanks starting from the T-34 all the way through to today's modern T-14 Armata main battle tank, and the Terminator 2 fire support combat vehicle.

After that, want to do the same with the USA tanks from the Sherman up and through the M1A2 tanks. It's interesting to see the evolution of these machines. 

[CDW]

Just now, mtaylor said:

They might get away for a short time being "hull down" but they're still an inviting target.  Tanks were basically useless in Vietnam due to not being able to maneuver.  In combat they had a survival time of just a bit longer than the APC's.  

I believe it still holds true that he who has air superiority has the upper hand. Having said that, the only way to occupy (and hold) a given area are boots on the ground. Tanks are a means of providing the fire support needed by ground pounders but airpower can pop tanks open like shooting fish in a barrel.

Edited July 10, 2022 by CDW

[Old Collingwood]

This kit looks like a good one  aswel  Craig  - 

 

OC.

 

 

https://www.scalemodelshop.co.uk/amusing-hobby-1-35-t-72av-with-full-interior-p18966/

[CDW]

Just now, Old Collingwood said:

This kit looks like a good one  aswel  Craig  - 

 

OC.

 

 

https://www.scalemodelshop.co.uk/amusing-hobby-1-35-t-72av-with-full-interior-p18966/

May need to take some pointers from you on finishing these figures, OC.

There is only one for the T-62, a commander.

[Old Collingwood]

5 minutes ago, CDW said:

May need to take some pointers from you on finishing these figures, OC.

There is only one for the T-62, a commander.

No problem at all   - just shout me  when ever you need me.

 

OC.

[Egilman]

39 minutes ago, CDW said:

want to do the same with the USA tanks from the Sherman up and through the M1A2 tanks. It's interesting to see the evolution of these machines. 

Yes it is.. I have most of the mainline American machines from the FT-17, Mk-V  and Mk 8 International to the latest M-1A2 Abrams... Planning on starting them as soon as I get done with these two airplanes...

[CDW]

In the end, managed to totally screw up my paint job😵

I used Microscale Satin Clear for the first time and it cracked while drying, as if it had a reaction with the paint under it. Oh well, it was a cheap model anyway. If anyone notices it while on display at my house, I’ll just claim it was the cheap, crappy paint the Russians used on their tanks. 🤥

l’ll take one more set of photos when I get my commander figure painted and machine gun mounted, then call it finished.

 

 

[Old Collingwood]

Craig  if it was me  I would  flat it down a bit  - just to take a wee bit of  the shine out of it.

 

OC.

[CDW]

15 hours ago, Old Collingwood said:

Craig  if it was me  I would  flat it down a bit  - just to take a wee bit of  the shine out of it.

 

OC.

Agreed. That satin was glossier than I thought it would be. More flat hides a lot of sins, too. Don’t notice the finish as much. 
 

Got started painting my commander figure today. Just the black primer so far and waiting for it to fully dry before laying down some flesh tones later on.

[Old Collingwood]

2 hours ago, CDW said:

Agreed. That satin was glossier than I thought it would be. More flat hides a lot of sins, too. Don’t notice the finish as much. 
 

Got started painting my commander figure today. Just the black primer so far and waiting for it to fully dry before laying down some flesh tones later on.

Have you got  some  skin wash    - I use  this  one    just  brush it over  face  and hands   - 

 

OC.

[CDW]

5 minutes ago, Old Collingwood said:

Have you got  some  skin wash    - I use  this  one    just  brush it over  face  and hands   - 

 

OC.

Nope. just got back from the hobby shop, too. Didn't see this in time or I would have bought it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[Old Collingwood]

58 minutes ago, CDW said:

Nope. just got back from the hobby shop, too. Didn't see this in time or I would have bought it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

No problem.

 

OC.