An Armored Benchwarmer? T-64 in Combat | Forged for Battle 

When will you continue with the part 2 on the Leopard 2? Great video

10:02 I heard that many of those tanks actually ended up in the azov batalion of ukrainian army and the contract with Kongo was cancelled. The modification is called t-64b1m and you can actually see them on this video (but in the video author called it t-64bv but it's not a bv): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--n0QUPKw24Y.html&ab_channel=AZOVmedia

Thanks

How is AW ? Last time I played a few years ago it was trying to much to be WoT.

Does anyone know what the music at 6:53 was?

Our boi grew up so fast

And it has errors within the first minute. L7 development began in 1956 after hungarians rolled a T-54 into a british embassy

3:10 T-64 has a 115mm gun , T-64A would get a 125mm gun in 1969

War thunder meme compilations ARE high quality content

They grow up so fast.

and you will have something to brag about.

Fuel and ammo tho

imagine tesla making electric tanks. TESLA T1 VARIANT...... oof borked cuz no sun. The sun god has forsaken us!

@@neilz. Tesla was against any war he was an pacifist. In WW2 croats kill 70% of his family. Elon Musk is clown, puppet of big profit.

lolol house Vs T-64...

Honestly a lot of Russian tanks seem to have dreadnought syndrome.

@@ONEIL311 It would have wrecked anything had WW3 happened before 91, no? Not that nukes wouldn’t have just ended most life on Earth, but still.

​@@peterl3417 Air support exists along with Atgms

@@fishyfish6050 anti air exists along with APS.

@@M4_Sherman587 Radiation missiles exists along with the fact that Aps systems did not even exist in the 60s and the soviet drozd aps system was completely useless

That's an interesting statement about crew survivability bing of a lesser concern than vehicle repairablity. I was always under the impression that the soviet army too vallued a well trained crew higher than the vehicle. After all, a tank can roll off the production line in a few days, training a crew takes months at least...

Wouldn't a turret penetration have a good chance of setting off the autoloader anyways? Soviet tanks throwing their turrets is sort of a meme but it's a meme for a reason.

@@polygondwanaland8390 The reason is people making meme don't understand shit. T-64 stow no ammunition above the turret ring.

@@polygondwanaland8390 and that reason is poor training and tactics by Arab users, not a unique soviet design problem. Look up Iraqi abrams, they also lose their turrets when they blow up.

@@Bird_Dog00 well the t-64 was an expensive and advanced tank for it's time, so it kinda makes sense they want it as repairable as possible.

The fact that it wasn’t until highly advanced 105mm rounds and new MBTs like the Abrams and Leo 2 did the west have some sort of counterpart

The West saw AP missiles as an effective counter to Soviet armour during the 1950s and 1960s. The widespread adoption of missiles in West helped convince the Soviets of their validity and thus the urgent need to develop missiles equal or better than those of the US for use in armoured warfare. The lineage of the designs that resulted can still be seen today, even in modern Russian armour whilst the West gained time to catch up in the areas of armour development that were dragging the anchor.

Maybe. Because it is also the case that when the western countries actually faced various Soviet designed tanks, like in the war in Iraq, they found they'd overestimated their abilities. Not saying the Soviets didn't build decent tanks, but, like the T-34, they tend to have a variety of drawbacks that people overlook/ignore.

@@Axterix13 thats a comparison in the opposite favor. A bunch of poorly trained crews in T-72s in extremely disadvantageous positions facing US vehicles with thermal imaging and stabilized weapons is of course a crushing defeat. A T-64 firing 125mm anti tank ammunition is without a doubt going to destroy an M60A3 at any reasonable combat distance. Mentioning the Abrams is beyond the point because it represents the closing in the gap between US and Soviet armor. By the time of the Abrams introduction the Soviets had fielded 3 different composite armor tanks with advanced heavy smoothbore cannons. Comparatively the M1 Abrams started with the same 105mm rifled gun as the M60 before it.

@@kobeh6185 but the M60A3 TTS featured a thermal sight for the gunner and modern 105mm apfsds were capable of penetrating all but the most modern soviet mbts (T-80U/T-80UD, T-72B, T-72B Obr. 1989) frontally. While lacking in armor compared to soviet late second gen tanks, the M60A3 TTS packed a heavy punch and was deadly accurate, its fcs was one of the most advanced of its era, especially as it had a thermal sight, something only T-80UK got.

It sucks.

That it does

Majorities of the Russian tanks that got knocked out were done by ATGMs/Artillery instead of Ukrainian T-64s, though.

You meant that vid where Ukrainian T64 shoot other Ukrainians? On pieces? I know, thats Ukrainian tradition. But......

Tbf. Its mostly how shit the tank is being used.

The 105 was better than the 120 for it because of the reload and lighter weight. Plus ammunition advancements made the 120 less necessary until more recently.

​@@ConeOfArc to my knowledge the 20pdr was developed in response to the is 3 and then the L7 was developed once the British managed to inspect a t54 in Budapest and concluded that the 20pdr performance wont be sufficient enough to co,bat the t54

@@mohamedsewilam4134 I think the 20pdr had been toyed around with during WW2 but the British didn't have tanks capable of housing it to good effect.

Yeah you’re right, the L7 was developed after the British measured a t-55 during the Hungarian uprising in 1956. The British over measured and believed the 20 pounder to be unable to penetrate the t55 and so developed the L7 as a direct competitor. The chieftain was seen as the direct response to the t64 with its 120 l11 which phased out the conqueror and centurion. I think cone has missed some key points here.

@@aymonfoxc1442 20pdr was first used in 1948

Ukraine did indeed inherit a lot of the production line like most sophisticated engineering products in Ukraine, I believe components likely came from at least three countries. The Ukranians have certainly made it an indigenous sovereign manufacturing capability now.

The Soviets chose uvz to produce the next main tank for shock armies to replace the t-80 and t-64. This is because the t-72b proved uvz could produce superior armour layouts, reliability and range while still being cheap to produce and the only reason the t-80s outperformed them was better optics and firecontrols where were not part of kharkov's design but something added later. This resulted in objects 188 and 187, the former of which eventually became the t-90, both are uvz designs. Object 187 was the prefurred choice, basically being to a t-72b what a t-62 was to t-55 (new turret, modified and lengthened Hull, but a ton of interchangable parts) but Russia chose the 188 becuase of a lack of funds after the fall of the ussr (thus only building the object 188 which was originally just going to be called the t-72bu as it was intended to be a t-72 upgrade. But when it became the t-80 replacement instead it got a fancy new name, the t-90)

@@matthiuskoenig3378 wasnt the turret armor layout and strength of the T-80U or at least the UD comparable to T-72B? Furthermore Objekt 187 was not simply an T-62 like Improvement over T-72s qualitys, it introduced a new hull and especially ufp layout (which russian tanks lack up to this day) and a new layout for the engine. So it implemented totally and radically new features.

@@hendi1571 T-80U has armor far superior to T-72B, T-80UD has armor superior to T-90. The T-90A's turret is even based on the late T-80UD's turret. I'm not sure why Matthius is talking out of his ass. Obj-187 failed in it's attempt to be selected as the new USSR tank, Obj 477 was intended to go into production in the 1990s as it vastly outperformed all the alternatives. T-80UD was intended to be an intermediate production tank until 477 was in inventory in significant numbers. T-90 was never a replacement for T-80s, it was meant to replace T-72Bs. The only reason it hasn't is a lack of funds.

@@Nothing_._Here I'm not quite sure about this. There are varying accounts and opinions according to which the armor (turret front) of T-80U is either slightly weaker, slightly better or somewhat substantially better compared to the T-72B. The latter seems indeed most accurate as development of Objekt 187 and 188 was supposedly initiated with the intent to raise T-72 protection to T-80U level. But I've seen the hint that T-72B obr. 1989 was already a major step in this direction, which would make sense as Objekt 188 did not really have far better armor than this latest T-72 variant and instead featured a capable FCS. So as I said that's quite contested. And as the layout of the armor of T-80U and T-72B is significantly different its hard to compare. Furthermore T-80Us turret armor was improved over time, especially in 1989 which makes it even mor complicated. But in this case, T-80UD turret armor would outperform T-90 by a pretty big margin as the former surpasses T-80U itself and the latter is more or less the same as T-72B. But T-90A turret is unlikely to be based on T-80UD. It was based on Objekt 187 welded turret - yeah, Objekt 478BK had a welded turret as well but it was Kharkov's product. Furthermore this would mean that T-80UDs armor layout would follow the one of T-72B, as T-90A still shares the basic layout of T-72B afaik. And that seems pretty unlikely but its not impossible as T-80UD's turret armor significantly varied from T-80U. T-80UD was adopted as it was far cheaper in production and service than T-80U - a gas turbine was around 8 to 10 times more expensive than a diesel engine and had a 1,2 to 1,4 times higher fuel consumption. After Ustinovs death a new high capability Diesel engine tank became bearable again - introducing T-80UD. While T-90 may not have been inteded to replace T-80s in service, it replaced them in production as producing 3 different designs at the same time (T-80U in Omsk and by Kirov; T-72 and T-90 by UVZ ) was deemed not feasible and Yeltsins Russia-policy played a role as well.

It looks so cool. Especially the ukrainian variants

I think America makes the best tank of all; it flies and goes “brrrrttttttt”. 😁

@@keirfarnum6811 nah

@@keirfarnum6811 Oh no! It's retarded!

@@keirfarnum6811 My guy, literally any tank is obliterated by an A-10, even the M1A2SEP, yep! The abrams isn't invincible! Although unless it isn't shot down since it doesn't have much missile protected like fighter jets such as the F-35,22 and 18.

Or Bulat - quite interesting too

@@scandited2763bulat 2 is even better

:(

That's the T-72 doe

They do not do well alone

Ukraine had alotta these, but right now it seems that they exhausted most if not all their T64s with the remaining probably in the western territories or in use by LDNR But early on we got to see alot of the T64s (usually ganked on) kinda unfortunate ngl I liked how they looked

@@Ry-bo9hiukraine still has them. Azov uses them and basically every tank brigade. Even though captured and field modified T-72 are also very common

Its obscenely untrue given the 13 year gap between the unveiling of the IS-3 at the berlin victory parade, and the L7 being first mounted in a production tank in 1958

@@miltaryaddict1 to be fair that does sound par for the course of british army competency

And they stripped the explosive from the ERA Making it completeley useless

You are comparing post WWII tanks to WWII tanks though, I'm pretty sure the T-64 had some sort of a spall liner, meaning unless it is hit in a place where there is like ~40mm of armor it should be ok.

@@werrkowalski2985 Yeah but I doubt they are just going to stare at each other and wave as they go by, and like I said that may also be hoping to open a gap in the reactive armour's protection to make scoring an effective hit possible but I'm spit-balling here mate. You'd have to be on the front or in the motor-pool to know what they are thinking.

@@werrkowalski2985 In WW2, it sometimes took dozens or even hundreds of direct hits to elminate a KV-1 like this with the small calibre guns.

@@aymonfoxc1442 Yeah I’m kinda failing to see the point of using HE for just the chance of something happening instead of using regular AP rounds. Like sure you explained HE can be effective but wouldn’t AP accomplish all of that and to a better degree?

@@MrToasterWaffles Not if the 'AP' round being used isn't capable of penetrating the target.

Kept alive by EU, CN and some asian players... a few US still

Yeah, I played it back when Obsidian was involved and it was clear even then that the player base was in trouble.

@@KiLDELTA RU keeps PvP running, everyone else keeps PvE running

@@polygondwanaland8390 Which is strange since literally everyone seems to say that Obsidian's direction would have beat WoT, when i've heard they balanced just about as bad as Wargaming.

In which modes? PvP and PvE or just the PvP scene?

@@steweygrrr PvP for sure, last time I tried to play I couldn't get a match in anything over tier 4 even after being in queue for +10mins

PvE is still a thing because it's so few players, but it gets quite repetitive after a while which sucks the fun out

@@rhystaylor851 I never really enjoyed the PvP because it always devolved into pixel hunting back when I played. Shame about the PvE too because it's really the only game of it's type that offers that kind of content.

@@steweygrrr yeah PvE was fun for a while, but the bots really didn't offer much a challenge after you'd memorized where they spawned, and there wasn't enough variety to keep me interested

Yep, legendary for catastrophic turret separations when fired on by Bradley chain guns...

He didn't say it was a GOOD legend

The Czechs have alot of old hardware for sale from what I know.

Czechoslovakia recieved lots of tanks from the Soviet Union at their peak they had over 4000 MBTs in service. As I'm sure you can figure niether the Czech republic or Slovakia need armies that big anymore. The Czech army has 50 T72s still in service with 60 in reserve, whilst Slovakia only have 20 T-72s.

The T-64 was withdrawn from service with Russia. It's 🇺🇦 only now.

@@nsort3009 he means DPR and LPR

@@wonkagaming8750 nah. They captured a T-64BV near Kharkov, the Russians themselves are using them

@@cornetinu4203 captured T 64s are being given to the DPR and LPR, but the russian dont use T 64

@@wonkagaming8750 Nah. They do use it. I literally told you where, the separatists only operate in the southeast of the country

Fast answer: T-64 wheels were made to accoplish weight reqirements. T-72 were heavier,but much more reliable, durable, and better

The T-64 has been used in combat since 2014, so this is by no means it's baptism of fire. And Ukraine actully plans to phase them out, after the war is over, and standardize on the T-72 and T-80.

I've already covered those in a previous video.

Well not... Beacuse Russia isnt using the t64....

@@alexusmc2384 it will happen eventually, Russia is exhausting their supply of vehicles

@@alexusmc2384 hell, they’ve already deployed the BMP-T and the only T-80UM2 EVER, with the Drozd 2 APS

@@doogustrog there are like 30 of them

@@alexusmc2384 Nah, there’s one UM2 prototype

It depends on inflation but it might still be cheap even if stuff like the T-72 were as much as 40% cheaper.

@@MyTran-gn4rk You're looking at about $250,000 for a very out dated but in good mothballed condition T-72M

Fascinating. So the older tank beat it’s replacement? That’s usually not how it works.

@@keirfarnum6811 T-64BV and T-72B2 are only marginally different, the gun is the same.

@@keirfarnum6811 not really, most of the operatable 64s were destroyed during 2013

@@r-saint "T-72B2" yeah ... no , and T-64BV and T-72B3 (which was used by russian in donbass) are quite different , B3 as way more armor , better FCS , better engine for exemple

@@r-saint There definitely could not be a T-72B2 "Slingshot", this is a prototype of the UVZ modernization for the T-72B in 1989. it is the basis for the T-72B3, but it is very different from it. T-72B 1989, similar to the B3 because it is being upgraded from this model. The most protected and dangerous. T-72B1 (BV) simplified model T-72B 1984. T-72B3 2013 is a T-72B 89 body with complete disassembly, defection and replacement of systems, engine and weapons with T-90A 2004 and modern T-90S systems. The T-72A was not used, as far as I know. The T-64A is the original model, has no EPA, weak armor, poor reliability, but good FSC. T-64BV mid-80s, there is a first-generation EPA, excellent FCS, armor at the level of T-72B 1984, as well as reliability problems. T-64BM Bulat - T-64BV with a heavy Knife-type ERA, suffered heavy losses, was withdrawn from the conflict zone due to constant breakdowns, very weak chassis. The T-64M is the T-64BV, but with a Polish thermal imager and a new "light" epa "knife", some analogue of the T-72B3, work on errors regarding the T-64BM Bulat. But they are few. In addition to the T-72B3 (Catherine generation 2+ cooled thermal imager) and the T-64M (not cooled generation 1+), the listed tanks do not have thermal imagers. 125mm guns are really similar and use the same high-explosive shells. But the T-72B3 uses the A46M5 cannon T-90A with a slightly different design and improved characteristics, the T-64BV and T-72B use standard 2A46-2 and 2A46-1. the main shells for these guns are high-explosive or cumulative. They are much more powerful and closer to artillery shells than tank shells in the usual view. In addition, the T-64BV is much more advanced than the T-72B, but inferior to it in reliability and protection, the guns are the same. They were produced in parallel and it is not correct to assume that the T-64BV is older (in addition, there were also T-80B and 3 (!) tank models at the same time), this is not so. A high-explosive projectile has every chance of damaging any tank because it is a 5-6kg land mine. It can ignite the external tanks, damage the cannon and take everything off the armor, including ERA, which will detonate at the same time. If the tank received several hits at the same time and lost mobility or the ability to shoot, it is thrown because the crew is more priority. And ... yes, in this conflict, the use of AFPDS is rather episodic because high explosive (hash) are quite effective and universal for all purposes, besides there are many of them, and there are practically no afpds, and the old ones are not effective. The exception is the T-72B3, which has much stronger armor, the same ERA and a modern thermal imager arrow, while a new gun and shells. In total, 5 (!) T-72B3 were lost, most likely due to ATGM on board or massive shelling. The losses of the T-64 from all sides are almost 400 tanks. T-72B3 among the old tanks is a fox in a chicken coop at night. All losses of armored vehicles are reflected on the lostarmor website.

It’s the American Heritage Museum in Hudson, Massachusetts. Fantastic place!

russian transliteration? For the tank, that was named in Ukrainian?

​@@LayronPK While Ukrainian is its own language and is the official language of the state, most Ukrainians either prefer Russian or speak both languages interchangeably. It's actually considered a problem by the Ukrainian government, who have had to mandate Ukrainian be used in all school classes that do not require a second language. Plus the meaning of the word doesn't care about who used it, it still means the same thing.

@@randomlyentertaining8287 Ukrainian tank = Ukrainian transliteration. It's that simple

I really disliked the intro. I realize the sponsor segment is needed to make money but the rest of the intro is annoying for no good reason. Switching to the female voice doesn't add anything to the video.

It's mostly active overseas, but the PvE content is something you won't get anywhere else. It really just needs good marketing in the states, as it seems to do a very good job attracting WT and WoT players

PvE is where it's at, and the grind is far faster than either WoT or WT

alright

I guess Ukraine is just trying to make the best out of what they got.

Noone cares about crappy ukrainian vehicles lol

@@marinodezelak1180 That’s how it is, can confirm (except for APCs such as BTR-4)

At least some factories means Ukraine can do something with their armor, however when it comes to the air they are hopeless.

@@the_burger Yeah, Russian turrets tosses are way cooler.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean the T-80 was the Soviets' attempt to build a tank to match the Abrams? T-80 entered service several years before Abrams even entered the production phase. T-72 isn't even in the slightest bit related to the T-62; the only thing it has in common with it is the similar doctrine it was designed around. T-80 was never meant to be USSR's primary tank. It was meant to serve kind of as a force multiplier. Similar to how the US Navy consists of a high-low mix of ships. T-90 is basically a T-64 without the reliability issues and over-complex design.

@@definitelyfrank9341 The T-90 is basically the new workhorse of the russian/soviet army and a modernisation of the T-72 and the T-80 is the russian/soviet premium tank and used for special units.

It`s a russian propaganda game, i do not recommend spending your time on that.

This video is currently 15 months old.

It’s an old tank

​@@mbtenjoyer9487 But it's still in used by both side

@@OnxGrid Mainly by Ukraine

Amen. The best protected MBT in history, the revolutionary 2T Stalker, the Ukranian Merkava, ...., just wow

T-84 yatagan basically a ukrainian T-80 with diesel engine,a 120mm gun, and a turret bustle autoloader.

@@raff257 yeah and the small crew compartment at the back, right? Earning the nickname Ukranian Merkava

@@superwout no it's a different tank, the ukrainian merkava is obj 488,i'm talking about the t-84 yatagan

@@raff257 ow, should do my background checks again