How Bad Was The T-64? 

Israel that are still using the Magach:

The SR-71 still holds record of fastest manned air breathing jet engine aircraft. Using a j58 engine. Which you might guess was manufactured in 1958. So 50's tech.

We actually do use military vehicles designed back in the fifties. Just look at the B-52.

@@rowrowmrmao6250 that thing is going to outlive me and you

The M1 Abrams is getting there. The design is over 40 years old.

This is the Soviet engineering which (in combi with other relics of era) Ukraine hate so much lol. Not saying governmental Russia likes it more though, but she will collapse way faster if declaring communists some enemies.

@@raketny_hvost huh

"Its insane to think that initial T-64A weighed only 7 tonnes heavier than a T-34-85, while exceeding the M60 in speed, armament, protection, and logistic mobility." The primary reason for that is actually very simple. It's because of how the T-34 was severely hampered by the Christie-suspension combined with the attempt to have fully sloped armor all-around. It's kinda funny how the Christie-suspension is so often talked up as something positive, yet when you look at it objectively, it's the biggest flaw the tank has. Compare it to the T-44, the primary difference being exchanging it for torsionbar suspension. Same weight, several times better protection. Simply because the Christie-suspension results in a very TALL tank. Oh, and then of course, there's that composite armor taking some weight away as well. "I couldn't say the same for any other tank designed in the 1950s." Eh, the M60 and M48 are still in use... While not quite as easy to upgrade, they could probably be done to a similar degree. And of course, there's always the T-54/55. Designed in the 40s. Still in mass use. Still surprisingly effective.

@@DIREWOLFx75 Yup. People are so hung up on video games and heavily cherrypicked battlefield video that they don't realize that many aspects of tanks have been largly mature for 50+ years. The most important aspects of modern tanks are the fire control and optics. Pretty much any post-WW2 design can have those fitted. Add modern ammunition and you've got something that's going to cause problems for any peer level opponents.

@@DIREWOLFx75 To upgrade M60, a much more inferior design to T-64, to the same level you would need to melt it down and rebuild from the raw steel. Essentially the armor package on T-64 is far superior to M60 and there is no easy way to fix this. You may be able to change the gun on M60 to 120mm - there were some plans to do such conversion but none that I saw in action. T-64 is simply first tank in a new tank class while M60 is a generation older - its like saying you could improve WWI tanks to compete with say early WWII tanks.

It's comparing two very different eras. I would imagine it's very confusing.

t-55, laughed by many in modern times for being old and useless, it proved invaluable to macedonia during the 2001 insurgency. out of 60, 1 got captured and only 1 got destroyed.

​@@ravenouself4181T-55 back when it was designed was revolutionary

They're really noticeable when their turrets blow off like a signal flare.

@@stewpacalypse7104 overused and lame. Also, we`ve seen western tanks` turrets blown off as well in the Middle East.

@@azuragoddess "overused and lame" is a good way to describe the Russian army.

@@stewpacalypse7104 cringe.

@@azuragoddess show me a video of a nato mbt have its turret pop off over 200ft in the air

ive never seen a russian get pissed over how bad bmp-1 or this t-64 was

corrupt fascist regime lololol

​@@al_the_crow hm, I've seen some get pissy over the T-72 and T-90, but not the T-64... Some however do get pissy over the T-34 I've seen

There is no significant difference in price between the T-72 and T-64 The problem was that UVZ did not want to establish the production of a “not their own” tank. So they created T-72 from T-64. Turned out really bad about the price it's "urban legends"

@@Clarcstown complete bs from the first word until the last

@@higherground9888 Get ur airpower out of here, no tank rely on air support to be effective, it's a disgrace. Ukraine has minor victories because Russian withdrawing and it has nothing to do with their tanks. T-64 is an absolute beast in it's time when upagainst M60 or Leo1. Composite armor, smoothbore gun with APFSDS, autoloader, etc etc. The strongest spear and shield of the era. But when against T-72 they are pretty much identical on practice.

@@higherground9888 Completely wrong, Russian force does not heavily rely on air power. They have triple the amount of artillery within 2 to 100kms from the frontline and lined in depth. Their artillery support doing TOT like breathing. Russian aircraft or CAS in general are risking high into enemy territory. Despite being high sorties, we see a lot of Russian gunship used as ARA instead of getting upclose. Ukrainian still has a fairly big stockpile of manpads and some of their AD still hide well and operational. What the fuck is a Su-50

No

Nop.

Nope, there are proves battle between them on telegram, the T-72 still came out on top.

They didn't implement the remotely operated HMG mainly because it was immature/too complex at the time. And, no the Russians first implemented the concept on the T-90 Obr. 1992. I don't think if the T-80BVM's HMG is even remotely operated. Some T-80s during the Soviet era have revisited the concept. I think one of them was the T-80U.

Big funni "fugg" moment realizing the guy who championed the battlefield toxin that is US airpower is a guy the Soviets pushed away by doing a rather large oopsie dysgenocide.

@@user-tv7fg7wt2d I've yet to see a T-90 with a remotely operated HMG. And yeah, my bad on a BVM, had to double check the one captured. T-80Us HMG isn't remotely operated, it's a Ukrainian T-80UD that has this feature.

@@armoredbaguette Oh yeah, it was the diesel engine T-80U that had that feature (Edit: now that I got a good look at it, it does seem to be remotely operated). I couldn't get a good look on the T-90's HMG, but it seems that T-90A has it and T-90M's HMG is a Kord and is, of course, remotely operated.

@@user-tv7fg7wt2d True, internet says T-90 has a remotely operated HMG: NSVT or Kord. Guess I have T-90 and BVM mixed up. Don't have a T-90 around to take a look. But there is a T-72B3 around and you have to stick your body out to operate the HMG. I don't like the tank, it's just too uncomfortable to operate as a gunner compared to T-64. And on T-64s you don't have to adjust the sight after lazing like you have to on T-72s. But, the thermal sight is a bit better than on T-64BV m.17 and the turret rotates by some 10 deg/s faster.

Yes

@@Spookston bring the swordfish as backup

@@Spookston sweet

@@flamingosaredumb7693 wirraway

Ah yes the armoured car designer to go over ssnd etc and then warthunder goes: lmao go slow

T90 is just upgrade of t72, which is only shitty version of t64

​@@vitivers delusional

@@vitivers Man you just need to realise that Russian yech always beat "super" west tech)

@@АлександрКилочек-г5ш have you seen much tank duels during war in Ukraine? captured and destroyed tanks does not show supremacy of russian tech.

​@@vitiverswell, at least one Abrams got downed by T-72, which already disproves all claims of the former's total superiority. But there are better and much more important things to compare in a long full scale war - ease of use, reliability and how much it stresses the logistics to keep the machine operational. Western tanks fail in all categories - they're terrible to drive through mud, they (especially Abrams) eat a lot of fuel, they frequently break (again Abrams and it's air filters) and require a lot if effort to maintain them. On top of that they've completely unequipped for drone war (T-90M by comparison comes with drone cage and EV from the factory). So yeah, western tanks are good for parade demonstrations and against sheep herders with AKs but suck in real war.

It's garbage 🤣

The British still grumble about how their tank was the only one to provide a multifuel engine (regardless of how garbage it’s reliability was)

I've read that if 50% of chieftains sent to a rally point actually arrived, it was considered a success. Guess they were as reliable our Sunbeam Alpine......

Chieftain was pretty decent for its era, but definitely got outdated fast. People loooove bringing up the Iran-Iraq War, however they conveniently forget to mention that it was in twilight years when the war started, and by the time the war ended, it had been phased-out in frontline service with the British Army by the Challenger. When the Invasion of Kuwait rolled around, it was far behind the times. Being pitted against Soviet tanks designed in reaction to it was hardly a fair fight to begin with, so no wonder it suffered heavy losses against Iraqi forces. As for the ever-famous L60 engine, designing an internal combustion engine around multi-fuel operation was never going to turn out well, but fair play for at least *trying* to meet the NATO standard, despite how stupid it was. The Chieftain's reputation likely would have been better in British service had it not had such a terrible engine, as most other systems on board were up to scratch, but I guess we'll never know.

T-64 may have suffered reliability issues, but there were a heckuvalot more T-64s than there ever were Chieftains and the Chieftain's reliability was *worse*

Hell you can bring up an M4 Sherman into a modern conflict, if you don't have any AT Weapons which can reliably knock it out that 75mm is and three machine guns (2 .30cals 1. 50 cal) is going to do alot of damage to Infantry.

I guess you meant psychological effects. Physiological effect would be when enemy shits themselves seeing the tank. But that fits too.

@@IceAxe1940 The final CCP attack on the ROC involved 3 M5A1 Stuarts that had to run over attacking communists after they ran out of ammo. Of course, they only had rifles, so the Stuarts were functionally invincible. IIRC all three remain as a monument, the "Bear of Kinmen". They're in really good shape for being a monument exposed to the elements; they look like they could drive off at any moment.

@@XEyedN00b ty

Every modern military or somewhat competent military has squad based anti tank capabilities. Infantry no longer fears tanks when then can pop up, shoot, and hide from a mile away

The problem is that it took that long. Especially when you compare it to other earlier NATO tanks. Idk about you but I would rather operate a M1A2SEPv1 than a late model T-64. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have fixed the issues, but by the time they did, it was way outclassed

The 2017 upgrade was and is botched. Look up how Ukrainian tanks performed in joint exercises with NATO. Stabilizers are broken to all hell there.

@@xtremekewii It depends. When the 64B and BV entered service with the SU and East Germany in the 80's, the US was still largely fielding M60's which were far inferior to any 64 or 80. Obviously the Abrams was superior in almost all regards by then but wasn't really the main tank force for a long time. Comparing a SEP in 2022 to a 64B shouldn't even be a question in my opinion. The 64 at least does have some advantages over the T72A and B, namely ergonomics, bad terrain and mud traversal, a better FCS and for the most part a more reliable engine. There is a reason the T80 was based off the 64 and not the 72.

@@Kolobochok95 I think comparing them is fair when Russia is still using them

@@friedrichvonsnatch3501 Russia is not using the T-64, Ukraine is

Alpharius?!

Hydra dominatus fellow alpharius

Go away skaven

Key word here is "sufficiently modernized" Some ERA and stuff like thermals doesn't really count as sufficient

@@Lofi.z34 pretty much any modern tank shot can go through pretty much any other modern tank your argument is a little silly

@@Lofi.z34 the t64 was in service well before the abrams was a thing.

@@Lofi.z34 t64 isn't a main battle tanks compare it to oplot but oplot is already not very new...

​@@shouhanyun8203 yes, it counts, and a lot... Being capable of spotting enemy targets at night, 2-3 miles away without using a suicidal IR searchlight visible from the space is a huge thing in most modern conflicts. Canister munitions can still obliterate small squads of soldiers since the human flesh is the same today as it was in the 70's. Modern FCS can turn every IFV or light vehicle (or low fliyng helicopter) in a easy kill. ERA modules such as Kontakt-1 can increase up to 20-30% the protection of the (stil composite) armor, and often protect aganist the most common ATGM threats (RPG-18 and AT-4). It's not an Abrams or Leo2, but if U don't declare war on the USA, u can easly keep in check the equipment of most countries on the planet.

I always wondered what those were about

Thanks I've never seen that on a tank before.

They were replaced later in the production of the T-64A by more conventional rubber skirts because like you said, they were too fragile and didn't play their role sufficiently well.

Agreed

No reverse speed? 🤨👁️

Designed in Soviet Ukraine bruh

Long 88 maybe, but the 128 kicks its butt even in a head on. And the jagdtiger is except for the ball port, frontally immune to its gun

@@awing6819 You can pen the entire lower plate of a jagdtiger as well.

​@@krazymongo and you're a lot faster and more mobile than the turretless Jagtiger 💀

@@krazymongo true, that Is the importance of hull down positions.

Google it

@@the_burgersame could be said about the topic of this video

Wait, you mean the: T-64 T-64A T-64A '72 T-64B T-64B '84 T-64BV T-64BVK T-64BM T-64BM2 T-72 Ural T-72M T-72A T-72AV T-72AV TURMS-T T-72A '83 T-72B T-72B1 T-72B '85 T-72B '87 T-72B '89 T-72BM T-72BA T-72B2 T-72B3 T-72B3 '14 T-72B3 '16 T-80 T-80B T-80B '83 T-80BV T-80BVM T-80BVK T-80U T-80UA T-80UM T-80UD T-80UE-1 T-80UK T-80UM2 T-90 T-90A T-90M What do you mean it's confusing?

I'll give you the cliff notes: was it uparmored in the last 15 years? If the answer is no, then the hull armor is garbage. The extra-thick T-64 turrets are OK. The T-80 never received good upgrades due to the maintenance requirements, "Why upgrade this pain when this other one is so much easier on me?".

Go on RU-vid look up Redeffect he made a video in detail telling how you can tell the difference between the three different tanks and what model it is

Definitely

Possibly

The Swedish recoiless rifle one is pretty interesting.

Armenia was kind of low on this modern tech part. They had almost no defensive systems against drones flying over around 4000m. Also it was numbers game, in some areas AZ had advantage more than 3 or even 5+

Funnily enough, T-72 was made as new platform, because they couldn't keep upgrading T-64's armor due to fact that T-64 wasn't built with armor upgrades in mind.

They actually came up with the T72 because they just could not get the T64 to work properly. At the time they saw it as they were basically running out of time not only in terms of having a contemporary tank which could match potential enemies, but also a competitive product to put out for export. The T 64 was taking years to get right and without any sort of progress. So some guys within the design shop decided to make a less technologically radical design which featured definitive upgrades over the T55. And nine months later they had the T72. The main things they changed from the T64 for the engine and the autoloader. The team chose a less powerful yet more reliable engine based off of those already used for trucks, and the auto loader was completely redone to work with electric motors rather than hydraulic systems. After about six more months they had a militarily viable and accepted model and that’s the beginning of the T72.

@@unknowncommenter6698 Russian propagandist bullshit The difference in weight between the T-64 and T-64BM1M is 8 tons You have been deceived T-72 is a "well repainted" T-62 Because 90% of the designs are the same

​@Clarcstown ehm... they look identical, but for the most part they are vastly different, so much so, that i think other than the gun and ammo, not much is interchangeable. The T62 was a basically beefed up T54/55. The t72 is a vastly simplified (=cheaper) 'mobilization' version of the T64

​@@Clarcstownsomebody else's different opinion = russian bullshit propaganda

I thnik they might add it if they add Yugoslavia as a standalone nation

Cope

Well the poor capitalist country is managing to fight a war agaist naro backed ukraine

@@ryssa2409It’s true. Russia fields Chinese airsoft kits for its soldiers.

​@@Kruegernator123 and they also use shovels to storm positions and washing machine microchips to power their aircraft. How powerful they must be to advance everyday and make their enemies lose their ground with such equipment, especially in the face of the powerful modern technologies of NATO.

​@@johnjacobvilla6017dem hypersonic washing machine guided shovels took Bakhmut just fine, go figure

T-84Us, T-64BMs, T-80UE1s, T-80UA 2018, T-80BVMs, etc are doing fine in Ukrainian hands and T-80BVMs are doing fine in Russian naval units. The issue is doctrinal. It doesn't matter how good your equipment is if you only train the crew for a week.

What? Challenger 1 and Leo 1 ring any bells? Both newer then a t62 and tbh not really that much of an improvement

Eh not really

​@@datcheesecakeboi6745kpz70

I mean this is kinda true with the MIG-25 and F-15 fiasco, but other than that I don't think anyone was crapping their pants over a T-62B killing an Abrams or late model M60, but I can see your point based on Russian performance and quality.

Back in the day where the Soviets were actually a contender against the USA. But as we all know the Russians haven’t done much to change from the Soviet equipment and doctrine and that’s no longer the case. People still believe that the Russians are a powerful force but that belief is based off of a USA from 60 years ago.

Still, good today when used properly as seen in Ukraine where Ukrainian T-64s have knocked out Russian T-72s and T-80s

​@@carlosmedina1281 Except they haven't. Every time tanks face each other in Ukraine, Russians win

@@slavicemperor8279 wrong the Ukrainians have managed to defeat entire Russian tank divisions with their t-64

​​@@carlosmedina1281The Ukrainians actually sniped 10 Russian icbms with their T-64 did you know that 😮😮😮

Conservă cu șenile si tun de 100mm. Ar fi fost un tanc excelent pentru sfârșitul anilor '60💀

Ah yes, the Frankenstein T-55.

Ah yes,leak more classified information.

Sad EMBT noise. Even if you look at the three western demonstrators they differ widely from each other.

Well both western tanks are just design concepts while the armata is a real tank and people laugh at the russians that they cant produce it but i dout the americans and the germans will be able to produce those tanks without a major boost to their defence budgets. The us one is already bloated the german one cant be increased because of public backlash. The panthers are already expensive as they are now many nations simply cant afford them and the ines that can just buy a small amount of them.

Idk if the T14 really qualifies as "eastern tank design". Its more like a weird russian prototype that hasnt left any mark. I dont think Russia even has any tradition like that, compared to the Soviet Union?

The T-14 is not a concept like the AbramsX or panther, those 2 are private ventures, the ARMATA family is a state funded family of vehicles that are being trialed for service in the russian federation. Lack of funding for production is not the same as a technology demonstrator made by a private company

@@termitreter6545 yeah you really need to get more info on the tank

I already said I would

Thank you spookston my life is now complete

All tanks are better than a dumbass abrams tanks

@@licornedechainer777u just mad lol, no modern russian tank is up to standards with western tanks, even if some have been destroyed because, thats what they do and look at the russian tank loss rate lol

B-52 is somehow still going. Same with TU 95. Only changed from strategic bombing to standoff munition launchers.

Not russians - soviets

If the Design is reliable, effective, efficient and well liked, it tends to stick around well past the assigned Due date.

He already did i think

garbage on track, good against old soviet design, completely outdated against any "modern" counterpart.

@@tigerbesteverything It would still be nice to learn more about it.

The Sherman was a superior tank design to the Tiger in many ways, especially on soft factors.

Which is funny, because Sherman is infinitely better than Tiger

@@Кирилл-д6е4р It wasn't, the Tiger had superior armor/armor quality, weaponry, off road performance and optics. The Sherman had quantity, but these are two different tanks for different roles, so the actual quantity does not mater since it is a pure comparison of one of each.

​@@coatofarms4439 it absolutely was. Tiger couldn't drive 100 kilometers without breaking down, Armor being better is very arguable, because tiger had that stupid flat armor, and angling is only a GAMING trick. It was never actually used Also, Shermans having bigger numbers + having much better mobility makes them a perfect mobility doctrine tank, which proved to be the best tank doctrine And the last one. You forget that tank on tank combat pretty much never happens, it's almost always tanks being a support for infantry. In my opinion this is why mobility was proven much better than having a slow fortress on wheels

@@Кирилл-д6е4р The armor of the tiger was better than the Sherman in every way. The Sherman's sloping gave it better armor protection on paper but sloping also reduces the armor's ability to disperse the energy of a hit and survive several hits, a problem the tiger does not suffer thanks to the flat armor being capable of dispersing the energy much better. The Shermans had only 50/60mm (early/late versions) at 56/47 degrees (90~mm), but early Shermans suffered from terrible armor quality that diminished their effectiveness by a third of their actual value, the Tiger had 100mm of armor on the front that was found 20% stronger than allied equivalents. The Shermans could only pen 76mm/92mm at 1000m while the Tiger could pen 138mm. The Tiger was designed to be used as a heavy breakthrough tank that would be used in special battalions and would be deployed in select areas, not everywhere at once like the Pz-III or Panther. In terms of kill count the Tigers could absolutely perform well in their roles, they were also not slow by any means, and they had roughly the same top speed as a Sherman (35-48 km/h in short bursts for the Sherman vs 45.4 km/h). The Tiger also had much better ground pressure and off-road performance thanks to its torsion bar suspension and interleaved road wheels while the Shermans had poor off road performance and could get stuck much easier. The Tiger is a tank designed for a war of tank combat and breakthroughs over relatively small distances. The idea of them breaking down is a meme, they were not nearly as common nor hard to deal with.