Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "Bobi" channel.

Because it was bigger than 105. Why the tater-head clips?
9
Mainly as blyatmobile turtle tanks.
5
Youtube algo bot and spaghetti code.
3
@bobiwt That is not true. Crews button up when they have to, when under artillery fire, urban areas, CBN attack, etc. But not as a rule when "in combat".
2
BMP-3 just kind of come apart and scatter themselves all over the country side. Turrets included.
2
The Soviets would have been aware of the L7 development and fielding so it very much was an influence. Their plan was always to have the evolutionary design (that became the T-62) and an advanced vehicle. Design bureaus "pitched" things all the time. It does not mean they dictated what was adopted.
2
"71.25% of the total volume within the tank is reserved for the crew." LOL. No. That is the entire crew "compartment" volume, most of which is taken up by ammunition, which the crew has to fit around. The loader does have a seat, and probably the most room of the entire crew. And the 1.6m height is with the hatch closed. Its normally open, and the loader can stand up just fine. When the T-54 was designed the average height for man in the USSR was only ~1.7m.
1
@nemisous83 Being in a hurry to upgun the T-55, where you basically just make a version with a wider turret ring, seems kinda "panicy". OTOH The T-62 was just the conservative way of fulfilling the requirement for a "next gen" tank. As you note, there really wasn't a correllation between the fielding of it and the L7. As it was, the U-5ts and its ammo barely fit in the T-62. Its round wasn't any smaller than the original design. They just made the case fatter. Oh and made the tank bigger. Khrushchev liked new technologies, he thought that missiles would replace guns. That is why he favored smoothbores, because they could launch ATGMs. That is what drove a lot of seeming weirdness of Soviet AFV design.
1