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.
When people talk about T-64's development, not a lot mention the US helicopter threat. My neighbor, who was a professor and engineer had a Strela under his desk trying to figure out ways of installing it on the tank cause the higher-ups wanted to see the vehicle respond to a helicopter threat reliably without an SPAA/AA infantry support. They also stuck a GSh-23 on the turret and the test results were unsatisfactory. In the end the tank was equipped with a relatively new NSVT HMG, and mind you it was remotely controlled, something that russians won't implement in their redevelopment of T-64 till T-80 BVM. And the idea of installing an autocannon on a turret was revisited with the T-64E.
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.
@@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.
Regardless of how old the design's origin is, the T-64 is still one of my favorite tanks of all time. To be able to see how such radical design advancements actually played out is incredible, and the fact that if the tank is sufficiently modernized it can still serve its role effectively is a testament to Morozov and his teams' design. Would be interested in maybe a followup talking about some of the more modern versions of the T-64 as well, like BV mod 2017.
@@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.
One big thing ppl tend to overlook when it comes to tanks, is the psychological effect it has over enemy troops. If you cannot knock it out from a distance I dont care how well equipped you are, whole squad gonna retreat and not face it. Edit: And just to keep it topical, what we see in Ukraine on both sides is that these tanks getting knocked out by guided artillery or ATGMs when they're far away on the farmfields/outskrits. However when they used in storming a city/bigger village (For example: Mariupol) they can be extremely effective in routing out entranced infantry positions. There are numerous drone footages confirming this.
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.
@@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.
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
@@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.
Perhaps you noticed the flaps sticking vertically out of the side of the T-64 in the in-game footage. Those are to the best of my knowledge, to protect against shape charged rounds by offering a standoff explosion. They only offered protection at certain angles of shot and were frequently damaged and broken and so were not often seen on the T-64
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.
you've covered the T64, now how about it's British contemporary the Cheiftain? it would be interesting to go over and compare as they were both the top tanks of NATO and the Warsaw Pact at the time
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*
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 capability of these vehicles compared with M60 or even Chieftain is staggering, even despite their ergonomic shortcomings. Give the T-64 some Kontakt 5 or better, some thermals and quality glass, and it'd be fairly competitive with modern tanks. I couldn't say the same for any other tank designed in the 1950s.
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.
"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.
My father served in the hungarian army in the 70 and early 80s. First they got T-55As, then later they received T-72s... He told me, the difference between the two were vast, like they had to learn everything again. I believe the same is true for the T-64s when they were introduced to the army, thats why they say its so complex.
Crazy thing about T-64 is how early this advanced concept was introduced relatively. T-64 entered service 2 years BEFORE leo 1 and T-64A just 2 years after.
Hey spooks can you play the is 6? It has the mobility of a somewhat heavy medium tank, while being almost completely immune to German long 88 from the front except for a weak spot smaller than the tiger 2 mantlet weakspot, with a gun with enough pen to do good at 7.3 even though it is at 7.0
Would love to see a video on how most modern soviet and russian tanks are essentially upgraded and changed versions of the same base platform. Love the channel
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
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.
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 UA-cam 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
Spookston, I know you specialize in tanks and your by far my favorite youtuber all together but could you make a video specifically on anti tank rifles?
Really awesome to see that my original comment from over a month ago about this beauty (even if it’s an expensive one) made it through. Looking forward to more videos like this one!
A big issue (I think the biggest issue currently) is that people are too wrapped in the propaganda and ideology aspect of discussing anything in regards to warfare (or anything, really). 105 IQ reddit armchair historians aside, most people have these concrete opinions on topics using information that is no more than hearsay and baseless gossip because it's easier than actually thinking about the topic. I have tried to have an intelligent conversation about the technological advancement in modern warfare (and the effects the Russo-Ukraine conflict is having on that development) with multiple people who I know are knowledgeable in regards to military history and tactics, and none of them could mentally get past the propaganda. They hit a brick wall and just repeated political platitudes and non sequitur nonsense. My God, it's like trying to have a nuanced discussion about technology or tactics in World War Two and it just gets shit up with boomerisms and victory cult nonsense. The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict 2 years ago was very interesting to me because it was a case of two militaries duking it out with fully modern tech. It was like the testing grounds for weapons and tactics to be used in the Russo-Ukraine conflict in the same way the Russo-Japanese War was for World War One. Muh evil Putin, muh baseless attack, muh notsee volunteers, muh historical memes, stfu bro I want to talk about tactical drone strikes!
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+
Tank combat in the India-Pakistan wars is rather overlooked, even if the Battle of Longwalla is claimed to be one of the biggest tank engagements post WWII. As such - it could be a good video topic. Keith Laumer's Bolo series is a classic one, and discussing the idea of nuclear powered super tanks might be fun, though obviously a bit detached from reality.
I like Soviet tanks because they are really unique looking, and they stand out compared to Western tanks. Plus all of them are colored a nice shade of green.
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.
I love russian tankdesign and respect their innovative minds behind them. They dont desserve the western hate they have. Nice too see a video that dont vomit toxic propaganda from either side.
Could you do a video on the M48, M46 or M47? Maybe all 3 together. Whenever people talk about the Pattons it’s usually the M60, would be interesting to see and hear more about it.
In terms of soviet factory factionalism - it should be remembered that soviet factories were like weird quasi-companies - squabbling with each other over resource allocation and maintaining their own in-house design departments. They got paid when their designs were manufactured in their plants, and the amount that they got paid varied over time (getting lower the longer a design was in production according to a set scale). The design teams themselves could also see bonuses and other perks (houses, holidays, cars, that sort of thing) for getting a design successfully adopted. On the other hand, there was a tendency for non-performing factories and design teams to come under the whip - sometimes literally if the higher-ups decided that they were wasting state time and resources. So there was a huge incentive for factories to keep working on new designs and updates the whole time, and to make sure that it was their design (and not the other factory's) that got the nod. As to ragging on the T-64, I know some posters like to joke about it being a Kharkovite tractor and the like online. I have no idea if anyone out in the real world actually believe this in any big way though.
Since you requested a suggestion for a video... It would be great if you could make one for the new EMBT (and maybe even mention the old one). Im actually quite surprised you havent done one yet...
The T-64 is one of my favorite Cold War tanks. Many people think that if war broke out in the 70s the T-64 would be like a Tiger tank fighting Shermans but with much larger production.
@@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.
A topic overlooked quite often i think is the tanks used by Norway before ww2 until the end of the cold war, anything from captured German pz3 to modified chaffees with 90mm guns and better equipment
T-64 was hands down by wide margin best tank of 1960s. It was jam packed with tech and introduced a LOT of new technology to the battlefield. It introduced more tech than T-14. - first tank with autoloader - first tank with composite armor - first tank with smoothbore gun and a 125mm to boost - first tank (later version) with laser range finder & coupled with it ballistic computer these are the main aspects of the "first". The main drawbacks were issues with all this new tech and getting it to work as well as price. T-72 was created as T-64 and its upgrade, T-80 were too expensive to mass produce for large army or armies of allies. T-64 was never exported (!) However, one on one I would not want to be in some M60 facing this thing - you have weak main gun against its armor and your own armor is no more than butter for the smoothbore 125mm. In later years your enemy also has laser range finder with ballistic computer and you have high school algebra with coincidental range finder coupled to L7 105. Good luck getting that first killer shot at greater range!
The T-62's 115mm was already a smoothbore, and the americans had a prototype that also had one. Also im pretty sure the AMX-13's mechanically assisted reloader could count as an autoloader, but that depends on who you ask.
Spookston, I would love to hear your opinion on the M-84 MBT (Yugoslav licensed modification of the T-72) and whether it would be a nice addition to War Thunder. Thank you in advance and greetings from Serbia. :)
hey, this is probably a long shot, but i remember that you did an interview with a merkava mk4 crewman. i was wondering if you could ask him if there were ever rounds stored just behind the engine like in the game? i can't find anything saying that it does, and it is the most common way to kill the vehicle. good video by the way
Hello. I enjoyed your video. I just want to add that the information about the invalidity of serial T-64s is distributed by competitors (developers of T-72). In the 70s, the T-64/72/80 was tested, where all the T-64 problems you mentioned were absent.
Compare the t14 to the Abrams x and the Rheinmetall Panther. Im theyre concepts vs a tank in production but seeing easy vs West design and development theory should be interesting.
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
Kind of reminds me of the Type 74 as well, with how it was too ambitious and not ready until it was basically already outdated. That'd be an interesting video
“Not ready until it was basically outdated” what? The T-64B was the best tank in the world at the time of its introduction, and it was very very much ready
In theory you could employ any tank so long as it was equipped with ERA an active protection system, and maybe a few modifications to protect from handheld anti-tank weapons. Even in modern warfare an old WW2 tank would be formidable if you lack any kinetic weapons. An IS-2 or Tiger 2 lumber towards you is just as terrifying today as it was 70 years ago.
kinda pointless statement. Theoretically a blackpowder pistol is REALLY great if you are going up against a bunch of people in wheelchairs only armed with clubs
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 not really ERA still provides protection against KE rounds and old chemical rounds it’s just kinda a good thing to have I would rather have ERA then no ERA
7:00 I mean that’s not really big surprise, similar things happen in the US just in the aviation side. Some people dislike planes due to the company that designed them not being the one they like, similar can be said about engine manufacturers as well, with some liking airframe equipped with Pratt & Whitney engines over others, and others being wrong.
Would love to see a gameplay vid of the 90/53 M41M, it is easily my favorite vehicle in the game and one shots everything at 3.7. There also arent a lot of good vids out there of it so id love to see one from you.
It's a big departure from your usual, but I'd love to see something like this on the Ariete. It's my only top-tier tank in War Thunder, and ever since I became fascinated by Italian vehicles, aircraft, and military history, I've wanted to learn more about it. Seems to be one of the less effective NATO main battle tanks, but I lack any kind of expertise when it comes to this sort of thing.
7:13 there are quite a lot of reasons for some people to ''hate'' on kharkiv during the cold war mostly about their influence on the government that meant a lot of very promising projects going without funding or the entire T-80UD thing which pissed of almost everyone. Not saying that really agree with it but they where one of the major cases of kleptocracy in the union, the only reason the T-64 was kept in production into the 80s was Morozov's legacy and lobbying
The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR. As for the T-80UD, it's part of the Obj 478M project which was meant to replace all 5 different MBTs being built at the same time whereas 477 was meant to become the "special" tank. Both Kirov and Kharkiv had teamed up on both projects whereas UVZ entered pretty pitiful prototypes that cost more for less performance. Chelyabinsk had already tooled up to build engines for T-80UD by 1990. The only people hating on kharkiv and kirov are either people from outside the former soviet states or blindly patriotic russians.
@@Nothing_._Here The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR. Source for this? all military procurement in the USSR was made by the ministry of defense the republics did not have their own procurements to my knowledge ''As for the T-80UD, it's part of the Obj 478M project which was meant to replace all 5 different MBTs being built at the same time whereas 477 was meant to become the "special" tank. Both Kirov and Kharkiv had teamed up on both projects whereas UVZ entered pretty pitiful prototypes that cost more for less performance. Chelyabinsk had already tooled up to build engines for T-80UD by 1990.'' I'm referencing the naming problem there was, Kharkov wanted to call the new tank T-84 when the tank was a modified T-80B hull and the upgraded turret of the object 476 which is literally the same as object 219AS the T-80U
@@Ropetor "The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR. " Mind elaborating why it never saw any service outside of Ukraine, why it wasn't regularly upgraded outside of Ukraine? T-80UD is not a modified T-80B hull, the T-80A and T-80U are in-fact derived from obj 478. The reason it was called "T-80" instead of anything else has to do with the USSR trying to pretend it's not manufacturing several very different MBTs at the same exact time at a time when it was rapidly running out of money. Obj 219AS gets it's turret from the early versions of obj 478. The original turret for the proposed T-80A is very different.
Object 219AS has nothing to do with object 478. It's based on object 476 a plan to upgrade the T-64 with a new turret. Object 476 was cancelled and it was decided to use the new turret modify it more and mount it on a modified T-80B hull. This lead to object 219A aka T-80A later modified into object 219AS aka T-80U Object 478 started after 219A and used the same modified T-80 hull with the 6TD. ''Mind elaborating why it never saw any service outside of Ukraine, why it wasn't regularly upgraded outside of Ukraine?'' 32nd Guards Tank Division? 2nd Guards Tank Army? 20th Guards Combined Arms Army? 6th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade? Out of 4000 T-64's in 1990 Ukraine had 2000 all others where serving in other republics. The only reason for this is the initial teething issues of the T-64 required them to be in the Kiev Military District to have the factory nearby, after 1970 all other western districts started being equipped with them
@@Nothing_._Here Object 476 is not Object 478 it's a completely different project that was canned and the turret was the only thing used on a modified T-80B hull. Object 478 is a T-80B hull modified with the 6TD engine and it was started after object 219A.
@@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
As a matter of fact, the T-72 costs more than a T-64A: it has a much more expensive suspension system and running gear (11,218 vs. 25,265 in 1985 roubles) and is a bigger and heavier tank, requiring more resources to build. The T-64's 5TDF engine is more expensive (~18,000 vs. 9,800 roubles for a V-84), but not enough to outweigh the other differences. Technologically, the rest of the tank is similar. The reason the T-64B costs a lot more than the T-72A/B is because it has a much, much better fire control system with fully automatic lead and elevation compensation compared to the TPD-K1 and 1A40 complexes on the T-72s, as well as the Kobra GLATGM complex.
T-64As and T-72 Ural's fire control system was the same, the TPD-2-49 coincidence range finder In the 80s they began upgrading both with the TPD-K1 laser range finder that was on T-72A (1979) T-64B had a significantly better FCS then T-72A or B with the 1A33 FCS vs TPD-K1 and 1A40 respectively since it had autolay and autolead whilst 1A40 just had a readout how many mils left/right to aim at a moving target
Unless you already have, and im just being smooth and forgetting, continue this over to the T-72, T-80 and T-90, or at least as much as you can get. If you have, though i do recall you lightly going over the reason behind the two major tank choices, would be interesting to hear about it more. I do still like these tanks, as they do have quite the unique aesthetic and interesting alternative design philosophy to them, if nothing else.
Media makes people believe Russia fully relies on this very old tanks, the masses think Russia weapon development stopped around 1989 - 1990and is still in place. Oblivious to that the Russians restarted developing new weapons/upgrades over 20 years ago. T-64 has had constant upgrades over the years probably still fine as support/highly mobile field gun. I think it was not bad. Design was just to ambitious for its time causing delays until a really battle ready version appeared.
The main difference between T-14 Armata and T-64, is that one was built by an economic power house, and the other by a poor capitalist country which can’t afford equipment for the soldiers.
@@termitreter6545 True, but still and interesting concept especially within video games, shows, and movies. But I’m also referring to what they may need in order to work, where to place logistics, and crew sizes
@@MatteChains I feel like to even calculate what the required logistics are, you need to know what the role of a mech would be. Like, what do you want it to do, what do you want it to be capable of? And the major issue is just basic physics. The larger you built, the more you strain a given material. Its hard enough to keep a 40 ton tank run reliably on tracks. Legs are pretty much impossible at that weight, especially if you want any speed. Mechs are cool and all, but ive thought the same and looked into the matter, and it just seems like a concept that doesnt work in reality. Not at the scale of a combat vehicle. Like, one of the most effective legged robots currently is Robot Dynamics' Spot, and that thing is about 30kg (60 lbs) heavy.
It seems like a running theme with Soviet made stuff. Moscow demands a bigger or better thing be made as a show of force to the west, and on paper, it is delivered. IS-3, BMP-1, T-64, MIG-15, so on. NATO gets wind of it, freaks out, and then proceeds to make something to counter it in a blind panic. Said Soviet thing in secret has since had several setbacks, mechanical issues, logistical problems, or political fumbles/misuses by the military, and turns out to be junk on its own, not worth the squeeze, or only comes to full fruition some decade later. NATO meanwhile has, in their panic-stricken fear of communist expansion, and or invasion, created a literal monster of a machine that is a decade ahead of its contemporaries, even 30 years later. And I think this speaks to the goals of the two separate blocks' state of mind.
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.
T-14 has the same 25mm piece of side armor on the bottom side, the same 80mm on the side, flimsy 15mm of steel and 15mm of kevlar to separate crew from autoloader, afghanit is just an overmarketed drozd, the gun isn't much of an improvement and the quality control at UVZ is laughable. Compare it to the 477A1 which it is a really bad downgrade of a knockoff of. Obj 477A1 had 230mm passive armor on the side with kontakt 5. It had 1300mm frontally, it housed a very capable 152.4mm gun, utilized the GTD-1500 (1500HP), had a 30mm 2A72 autocannon, 50mm of HHA steel and 30mm of spall liner to separate crew from ammunition. The muscovites had taken the few prototypes sent to Kirov plant for development of GTD-1500 which UVZ had confiscated with the help of KGB in the 1990s and the best they could come up with was the obj 195, which they didn't have the skilled workers required to build so they simplified it even more which became obj 148, aka t14. It took them 26 years to take a design from the USSR that was pretty much finished and tested and ended up failing to replicate it. Much like anything "new" coming out of Russia.
When it first appeared, it outclassed every design we in the West had, and before long they had more T-64s than we had actual tanks. I don't care how old it is, when your side has a tank that both out performs and out numbers the enemy in every considerable way - that situation has never before happened in history. And it took us 30 years to come up with a tank that could even penetrate the front of it. Beyond any doubt, the greatest, most revolutionary tank in history.
That's like asking "how bad was the M4 Sherman". Completely irrelevant. And the T-72 and T-80 are showing their age pretty much the same as the M1 Abrams, which they are contemporary with.
It's crazy how old these tanks are, imagine if the US used tanks designed in the 50s. But a tank is a tank at the end of the day
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.
When people talk about T-64's development, not a lot mention the US helicopter threat. My neighbor, who was a professor and engineer had a Strela under his desk trying to figure out ways of installing it on the tank cause the higher-ups wanted to see the vehicle respond to a helicopter threat reliably without an SPAA/AA infantry support. They also stuck a GSh-23 on the turret and the test results were unsatisfactory. In the end the tank was equipped with a relatively new NSVT HMG, and mind you it was remotely controlled, something that russians won't implement in their redevelopment of T-64 till T-80 BVM. And the idea of installing an autocannon on a turret was revisited with the T-64E.
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.
T-64 to T-90:
“I am limited by the technology of my time.”
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.
Regardless of how old the design's origin is, the T-64 is still one of my favorite tanks of all time. To be able to see how such radical design advancements actually played out is incredible, and the fact that if the tank is sufficiently modernized it can still serve its role effectively is a testament to Morozov and his teams' design. Would be interested in maybe a followup talking about some of the more modern versions of the T-64 as well, like BV mod 2017.
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.
One big thing ppl tend to overlook when it comes to tanks, is the psychological effect it has over enemy troops. If you cannot knock it out from a distance I dont care how well equipped you are, whole squad gonna retreat and not face it.
Edit: And just to keep it topical, what we see in Ukraine on both sides is that these tanks getting knocked out by guided artillery or ATGMs when they're far away on the farmfields/outskrits. However when they used in storming a city/bigger village (For example: Mariupol) they can be extremely effective in routing out entranced infantry positions. There are numerous drone footages confirming this.
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
To be fair they fixed the T-64 in the B/BV model. Especially the 2017 upgrade has decent thermals, comms and good ergonomics.
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
Perhaps you noticed the flaps sticking vertically out of the side of the T-64 in the in-game footage. Those are to the best of my knowledge, to protect against shape charged rounds by offering a standoff explosion. They only offered protection at certain angles of shot and were frequently damaged and broken and so were not often seen on the T-64
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.
you've covered the T64, now how about it's British contemporary the Cheiftain? it would be interesting to go over and compare as they were both the top tanks of NATO and the Warsaw Pact at the time
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*
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 capability of these vehicles compared with M60 or even Chieftain is staggering, even despite their ergonomic shortcomings.
Give the T-64 some Kontakt 5 or better, some thermals and quality glass, and it'd be fairly competitive with modern tanks. I couldn't say the same for any other tank designed in the 1950s.
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.
Hey spookston, could you play the concept 3 south African light tanks once?
It has a 77mm and amazing speed at 4.3
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
0:44 Oh, it seems Johnny Sins is not just an actor, doctor, teacher and plumber but also worked as a tank engineer in USSR!
My father served in the hungarian army in the 70 and early 80s. First they got T-55As, then later they received T-72s... He told me, the difference between the two were vast, like they had to learn everything again. I believe the same is true for the T-64s when they were introduced to the army, thats why they say its so complex.
It's comparing two very different eras. I would imagine it's very confusing.
Crazy thing about T-64 is how early this advanced concept was introduced relatively. T-64 entered service 2 years BEFORE leo 1 and T-64A just 2 years after.
Good video I watch whole thing yes yes
Alpharius?!
Hydra dominatus fellow alpharius
Go away skaven
Hey spooks can you play the is 6? It has the mobility of a somewhat heavy medium tank, while being almost completely immune to German long 88 from the front except for a weak spot smaller than the tiger 2 mantlet weakspot, with a gun with enough pen to do good at 7.3 even though it is at 7.0
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.
Would love to see a video on how most modern soviet and russian tanks are essentially upgraded and changed versions of the same base platform. Love the channel
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
Regarding suggestions, how about a "Better than Expected" series? Tanks that on paper were obsolete, bad designed but performed better than expected?
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
Could you make a video about the differences between the T-64,T-72 and T-80, thier development and how to identify them?
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 UA-cam 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
Spookston, I know you specialize in tanks and your by far my favorite youtuber all together but could you make a video specifically on anti tank rifles?
Possibly
The Swedish recoiless rifle one is pretty interesting.
Really awesome to see that my original comment from over a month ago about this beauty (even if it’s an expensive one) made it through. Looking forward to more videos like this one!
A big issue (I think the biggest issue currently) is that people are too wrapped in the propaganda and ideology aspect of discussing anything in regards to warfare (or anything, really). 105 IQ reddit armchair historians aside, most people have these concrete opinions on topics using information that is no more than hearsay and baseless gossip because it's easier than actually thinking about the topic.
I have tried to have an intelligent conversation about the technological advancement in modern warfare (and the effects the Russo-Ukraine conflict is having on that development) with multiple people who I know are knowledgeable in regards to military history and tactics, and none of them could mentally get past the propaganda. They hit a brick wall and just repeated political platitudes and non sequitur nonsense. My God, it's like trying to have a nuanced discussion about technology or tactics in World War Two and it just gets shit up with boomerisms and victory cult nonsense. The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict 2 years ago was very interesting to me because it was a case of two militaries duking it out with fully modern tech. It was like the testing grounds for weapons and tactics to be used in the Russo-Ukraine conflict in the same way the Russo-Japanese War was for World War One.
Muh evil Putin, muh baseless attack, muh notsee volunteers, muh historical memes, stfu bro I want to talk about tactical drone strikes!
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+
Tank combat in the India-Pakistan wars is rather overlooked, even if the Battle of Longwalla is claimed to be one of the biggest tank engagements post WWII. As such - it could be a good video topic. Keith Laumer's Bolo series is a classic one, and discussing the idea of nuclear powered super tanks might be fun, though obviously a bit detached from reality.
Could you cover the Christie tanks? Like the Christie M1921 SPG, or the Christie M1931?
Definitely
I would love to see a video on the history of the 2S6, that's a very intriguing vehicle in my opinion.
I like Soviet tanks because they are really unique looking, and they stand out compared to Western tanks. Plus all of them are colored a nice shade of green.
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
In context, it really is a remarkable tank. A complete beast for the era.
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 😮😮😮
There is also T-84 as an interesting topic to talk about
I love russian tankdesign and respect their innovative minds behind them. They dont desserve the western hate they have. Nice too see a video that dont vomit toxic propaganda from either side.
Agreed
No reverse speed? 🤨👁️
Designed in Soviet Ukraine bruh
One of your very best. I love your objectivity. When you give a dissertation on a vehicle they all sound crappy, lol.
Could you do a video on the M48, M46 or M47? Maybe all 3 together. Whenever people talk about the Pattons it’s usually the M60, would be interesting to see and hear more about it.
In terms of soviet factory factionalism - it should be remembered that soviet factories were like weird quasi-companies - squabbling with each other over resource allocation and maintaining their own in-house design departments. They got paid when their designs were manufactured in their plants, and the amount that they got paid varied over time (getting lower the longer a design was in production according to a set scale). The design teams themselves could also see bonuses and other perks (houses, holidays, cars, that sort of thing) for getting a design successfully adopted. On the other hand, there was a tendency for non-performing factories and design teams to come under the whip - sometimes literally if the higher-ups decided that they were wasting state time and resources.
So there was a huge incentive for factories to keep working on new designs and updates the whole time, and to make sure that it was their design (and not the other factory's) that got the nod.
As to ragging on the T-64, I know some posters like to joke about it being a Kharkovite tractor and the like online. I have no idea if anyone out in the real world actually believe this in any big way though.
Since you requested a suggestion for a video... It would be great if you could make one for the new EMBT (and maybe even mention the old one). Im actually quite surprised you havent done one yet...
The T-64 is one of my favorite Cold War tanks. Many people think that if war broke out in the 70s the T-64 would be like a Tiger tank fighting Shermans but with much larger production.
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.
the t-64 was a decade ahead of its time. it was a very innovative tank.
T-64B Is a nice design model i like how the turret is fitting with the body.
I'd love to see some info on the modernisations as well
They're kinda my favorite
A topic overlooked quite often i think is the tanks used by Norway before ww2 until the end of the cold war, anything from captured German pz3 to modified chaffees with 90mm guns and better equipment
This was very informative, thank you!
T-64 was hands down by wide margin best tank of 1960s. It was jam packed with tech and introduced a LOT of new technology to the battlefield. It introduced more tech than T-14.
- first tank with autoloader
- first tank with composite armor
- first tank with smoothbore gun and a 125mm to boost
- first tank (later version) with laser range finder & coupled with it ballistic computer
these are the main aspects of the "first".
The main drawbacks were issues with all this new tech and getting it to work as well as price. T-72 was created as T-64 and its upgrade, T-80 were too expensive to mass produce for large army or armies of allies. T-64 was never exported (!)
However, one on one I would not want to be in some M60 facing this thing - you have weak main gun against its armor and your own armor is no more than butter for the smoothbore 125mm. In later years your enemy also has laser range finder with ballistic computer and you have high school algebra with coincidental range finder coupled to L7 105. Good luck getting that first killer shot at greater range!
The T-62's 115mm was already a smoothbore, and the americans had a prototype that also had one.
Also im pretty sure the AMX-13's mechanically assisted reloader could count as an autoloader, but that depends on who you ask.
Spookston, I would love to hear your opinion on the M-84 MBT (Yugoslav licensed modification of the T-72) and whether it would be a nice addition to War Thunder. Thank you in advance and greetings from Serbia. :)
I thnik they might add it if they add Yugoslavia as a standalone nation
Morozov looks like a spooky soviet giga chad tbh
Love your vids mate, how about a new series which you give your ideas to upgrade certain tanks like the Ferdinand or the Konig Tiger?🚜
hey, this is probably a long shot, but i remember that you did an interview with a merkava mk4 crewman. i was wondering if you could ask him if there were ever rounds stored just behind the engine like in the game? i can't find anything saying that it does, and it is the most common way to kill the vehicle. good video by the way
Ah yes,leak more classified information.
Hello. I enjoyed your video. I just want to add that the information about the invalidity of serial T-64s is distributed by competitors (developers of T-72). In the 70s, the T-64/72/80 was tested, where all the T-64 problems you mentioned were absent.
I'm surprised there was not mention of the panels that sick out on the sides of the T-64.
these were made to stop heat-fs shell from some angles from the front
Love the command an conquer generals US theme playing in the background! ❤
Another tank that's based on soviet models is the TR-85, to be specific the TR-85M1 model.
Conservă cu șenile si tun de 100mm. Ar fi fost un tanc excelent pentru sfârșitul anilor '60💀
Ah yes, the Frankenstein T-55.
Love your videos your my favorite I always look forward to watching you
This t64 could obliterate a leopard 1 in lot of situations.
By the time it was an excellent tank reserved only to the soviet elite tank crew
The facts are very well said great work my man 😁👍
Spookton, consider doing a video on the amazing Archer or 3 inch TD of the Brits.
PLEASE do the t-14 armata next, it's gonna be so fun
So fun to destroy all abrams x and new leo´s ambition bahahaha dmbass american who think they are the center of the world
@@licornedechainer777 the t-14 the 14 stand for the number of them made
why? the t14 hasnt been used in combat we dont know how bad it is xD
@@datcheesecakeboi6745 It's his opinion shut up
Can you cover the Challengers? I think most people don’t know much about them.
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.
when I heard the command and conquer generals music in the background good memories came flooding in my mind
good times
Compare the t14 to the Abrams x and the Rheinmetall Panther. Im theyre concepts vs a tank in production but seeing easy vs West design and development theory should be interesting.
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
Kind of reminds me of the Type 74 as well, with how it was too ambitious and not ready until it was basically already outdated. That'd be an interesting video
“Not ready until it was basically outdated” what? The T-64B was the best tank in the world at the time of its introduction, and it was very very much ready
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here yeah I was talking more about the type 74
you should try the AMX-30 DCA, it's got 110mm of pen with sap and apds, thing slaps everything it looks at in like 2 shots.
He already did i think
Absolutely loving the C&C soundtracks! Excellent music
In theory you could employ any tank so long as it was equipped with ERA an active protection system, and maybe a few modifications to protect from handheld anti-tank weapons. Even in modern warfare an old WW2 tank would be formidable if you lack any kinetic weapons. An IS-2 or Tiger 2 lumber towards you is just as terrifying today as it was 70 years ago.
kinda pointless statement.
Theoretically a blackpowder pistol is REALLY great if you are going up against a bunch of people in wheelchairs only armed with clubs
2 stage warheads and penetrator rounds made ERA obsolete.
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 not really ERA still provides protection against KE rounds and old chemical rounds it’s just kinda a good thing to have I would rather have ERA then no ERA
Let's be honest, KT would be used as far last chance because of it low mobility
ERA kit would help them...
Though you really haft to replace the 1940's era transmission and engine.
Will you do a video on the centurion also great video I never knew that the T-64 was that old
Centurion is just as if not a little bit older. That hull litterally must of been pushed to it's limit...
Russians : tanks designed in the 50s
Americans : Bombers designed in the 50s
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.
It would be cool to see a video on the kv-1. Like literally any of them they are so op at their br
7:00 I mean that’s not really big surprise, similar things happen in the US just in the aviation side. Some people dislike planes due to the company that designed them not being the one they like, similar can be said about engine manufacturers as well, with some liking airframe equipped with Pratt & Whitney engines over others, and others being wrong.
Great video. Keep up the good work.
Could you possibly do the SU100Y
Forty fourth video asking for the Spj fm/43-44, it has a 15 sec reload, and fires 8kg TNT equivalent HE shells, while at br 1.7.
Would love to see a gameplay vid of the 90/53 M41M, it is easily my favorite vehicle in the game and one shots everything at 3.7. There also arent a lot of good vids out there of it so id love to see one from you.
I really appreciate how you play the game while telling a story and educating us. Love it bud thanks for the upload.
Part 5 of asking for any content that the 76 jumbo is main topic
t64 was the most advanced tank for its time and prolly had the biggest impact on tanks thru the entire cold war
Will say the T-64 have come to good use now a days.
It's a big departure from your usual, but I'd love to see something like this on the Ariete. It's my only top-tier tank in War Thunder, and ever since I became fascinated by Italian vehicles, aircraft, and military history, I've wanted to learn more about it.
Seems to be one of the less effective NATO main battle tanks, but I lack any kind of expertise when it comes to this sort of thing.
Surprisingly excellent overview of the T-64 tank.
7:13 there are quite a lot of reasons for some people to ''hate'' on kharkiv during the cold war mostly about their influence on the government that meant a lot of very promising projects going without funding or the entire T-80UD thing which pissed of almost everyone.
Not saying that really agree with it but they where one of the major cases of kleptocracy in the union, the only reason the T-64 was kept in production into the 80s was Morozov's legacy and lobbying
The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR.
As for the T-80UD, it's part of the Obj 478M project which was meant to replace all 5 different MBTs being built at the same time whereas 477 was meant to become the "special" tank.
Both Kirov and Kharkiv had teamed up on both projects whereas UVZ entered pretty pitiful prototypes that cost more for less performance.
Chelyabinsk had already tooled up to build engines for T-80UD by 1990.
The only people hating on kharkiv and kirov are either people from outside the former soviet states or blindly patriotic russians.
@@Nothing_._Here
The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR.
Source for this? all military procurement in the USSR was made by the ministry of defense the republics did not have their own procurements to my knowledge
''As for the T-80UD, it's part of the Obj 478M project which was meant to replace all 5 different MBTs being built at the same time whereas 477 was meant to become the "special" tank.
Both Kirov and Kharkiv had teamed up on both projects whereas UVZ entered pretty pitiful prototypes that cost more for less performance.
Chelyabinsk had already tooled up to build engines for T-80UD by 1990.''
I'm referencing the naming problem there was, Kharkov wanted to call the new tank T-84 when the tank was a modified T-80B hull and the upgraded turret of the object 476 which is literally the same as object 219AS the T-80U
@@Ropetor
"The reason T-64 was kept in production is because Kharkiv plant built it for the Ukranian SSR. "
Mind elaborating why it never saw any service outside of Ukraine, why it wasn't regularly upgraded outside of Ukraine?
T-80UD is not a modified T-80B hull, the T-80A and T-80U are in-fact derived from obj 478.
The reason it was called "T-80" instead of anything else has to do with the USSR trying to pretend it's not manufacturing several very different MBTs at the same exact time at a time when it was rapidly running out of money.
Obj 219AS gets it's turret from the early versions of obj 478. The original turret for the proposed T-80A is very different.
Object 219AS has nothing to do with object 478.
It's based on object 476 a plan to upgrade the T-64 with a new turret.
Object 476 was cancelled and it was decided to use the new turret modify it more and mount it on a modified T-80B hull.
This lead to object 219A aka T-80A later modified into object 219AS aka T-80U
Object 478 started after 219A and used the same modified T-80 hull with the 6TD.
''Mind elaborating why it never saw any service outside of Ukraine, why it wasn't regularly upgraded outside of Ukraine?''
32nd Guards Tank Division?
2nd Guards Tank Army?
20th Guards Combined Arms Army?
6th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade?
Out of 4000 T-64's in 1990 Ukraine had 2000 all others where serving in other republics.
The only reason for this is the initial teething issues of the T-64 required them to be in the Kiev Military District to have the factory nearby, after 1970 all other western districts started being equipped with them
@@Nothing_._Here Object 476 is not Object 478 it's a completely different project that was canned and the turret was the only thing used on a modified T-80B hull.
Object 478 is a T-80B hull modified with the 6TD engine and it was started after object 219A.
Day uhhh... yes, of asking for a video on the Type 89.
T80 is my personal favourite, it was better than the m1 abrams in 1985.
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
Great video as always. How about how bad is the Leclerc next video?
As a matter of fact, the T-72 costs more than a T-64A: it has a much more expensive suspension system and running gear (11,218 vs. 25,265 in 1985 roubles) and is a bigger and heavier tank, requiring more resources to build. The T-64's 5TDF engine is more expensive (~18,000 vs. 9,800 roubles for a V-84), but not enough to outweigh the other differences. Technologically, the rest of the tank is similar. The reason the T-64B costs a lot more than the T-72A/B is because it has a much, much better fire control system with fully automatic lead and elevation compensation compared to the TPD-K1 and 1A40 complexes on the T-72s, as well as the Kobra GLATGM complex.
T-64As and T-72 Ural's fire control system was the same, the TPD-2-49 coincidence range finder
In the 80s they began upgrading both with the TPD-K1 laser range finder that was on T-72A (1979)
T-64B had a significantly better FCS then T-72A or B with the 1A33 FCS vs TPD-K1 and 1A40 respectively since it had autolay and autolead whilst 1A40 just had a readout how many mils left/right to aim at a moving target
Play the CV90s, with the addition of the PUMA, 2S38 and PT-76-57 and buffs to the Begleit and BMP-2M, the CV90 was forget by the community.
These WERE revolutionary tanks. They were way ahead of Western tanks and were true first MBT's with multiple "worlds first" innovations.
Suggestion: Lince Spanish Tank project
Unless you already have, and im just being smooth and forgetting, continue this over to the T-72, T-80 and T-90, or at least as much as you can get. If you have, though i do recall you lightly going over the reason behind the two major tank choices, would be interesting to hear about it more. I do still like these tanks, as they do have quite the unique aesthetic and interesting alternative design philosophy to them, if nothing else.
Hey Spookston ! Great video again, what about making one on the amx 10 rc ?
Support from France !
5:06 flounder looking ahh
Aa long as they have those carousel autoloaders we all get to have fun counting the number of flips the turret does before it lands.
Id love to see a video on all the variants of the T-64 as well as T-64s produced under license in other countries.
T54 and centurions are still used today they are 40s tech but revolutionary 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Old or not, T-64 is still the most popular tank in UA army
or was not that long ago, at least
Its also the most numerous or at least was
Bro t-64 is made by Russia, so it has the same power like those other series🤓
Media makes people believe Russia fully relies on this very old tanks, the masses think Russia weapon development stopped around 1989 - 1990and is still in place. Oblivious to that the Russians restarted developing new weapons/upgrades over 20 years ago. T-64 has had constant upgrades over the years probably still fine as support/highly mobile field gun. I think it was not bad. Design was just to ambitious for its time causing delays until a really battle ready version appeared.
The main difference between T-14 Armata and T-64, is that one was built by an economic power house, and the other by a poor capitalist country which can’t afford equipment for the soldiers.
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.
@johnjacobvilla6017dem hypersonic washing machine guided shovels took Bakhmut just fine, go figure
@@Kruegernator123yeah, I agree. They use shovels too
Not really a tank video but a video about the concept of mechs, and how or even if they would be even useful in the future or now
Thats easy to answer, they arent. Theres pretty much no realistic concept how something resembling a "mech" would be useful in war.
@@termitreter6545 True, but still and interesting concept especially within video games, shows, and movies. But I’m also referring to what they may need in order to work, where to place logistics, and crew sizes
@@MatteChains I feel like to even calculate what the required logistics are, you need to know what the role of a mech would be. Like, what do you want it to do, what do you want it to be capable of?
And the major issue is just basic physics. The larger you built, the more you strain a given material. Its hard enough to keep a 40 ton tank run reliably on tracks. Legs are pretty much impossible at that weight, especially if you want any speed.
Mechs are cool and all, but ive thought the same and looked into the matter, and it just seems like a concept that doesnt work in reality. Not at the scale of a combat vehicle.
Like, one of the most effective legged robots currently is Robot Dynamics' Spot, and that thing is about 30kg (60 lbs) heavy.
Bald people are really good at making tanks
Hey make a video comparison between T 64BV 2017 vs T 72 B3
But in game...it's gold
It’s surprising they have stayed in service for so long
It seems like a running theme with Soviet made stuff.
Moscow demands a bigger or better thing be made as a show of force to the west, and on paper, it is delivered. IS-3, BMP-1, T-64, MIG-15, so on.
NATO gets wind of it, freaks out, and then proceeds to make something to counter it in a blind panic.
Said Soviet thing in secret has since had several setbacks, mechanical issues, logistical problems, or political fumbles/misuses by the military, and turns out to be junk on its own, not worth the squeeze, or only comes to full fruition some decade later.
NATO meanwhile has, in their panic-stricken fear of communist expansion, and or invasion, created a literal monster of a machine that is a decade ahead of its contemporaries, even 30 years later.
And I think this speaks to the goals of the two separate blocks' state of mind.
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.
Hi spookston ♥️
Hello
best comment ever still!@@Spookston
T series tanks my beloved
8:24 how is it worse. I'm genuinely curious since nobody knows much about the t14 beside its delays
T-14 has the same 25mm piece of side armor on the bottom side, the same 80mm on the side, flimsy 15mm of steel and 15mm of kevlar to separate crew from autoloader, afghanit is just an overmarketed drozd, the gun isn't much of an improvement and the quality control at UVZ is laughable.
Compare it to the 477A1 which it is a really bad downgrade of a knockoff of.
Obj 477A1 had 230mm passive armor on the side with kontakt 5.
It had 1300mm frontally, it housed a very capable 152.4mm gun, utilized the GTD-1500 (1500HP), had a 30mm 2A72 autocannon, 50mm of HHA steel and 30mm of spall liner to separate crew from ammunition.
The muscovites had taken the few prototypes sent to Kirov plant for development of GTD-1500 which UVZ had confiscated with the help of KGB in the 1990s and the best they could come up with was the obj 195, which they didn't have the skilled workers required to build so they simplified it even more which became obj 148, aka t14.
It took them 26 years to take a design from the USSR that was pretty much finished and tested and ended up failing to replicate it. Much like anything "new" coming out of Russia.
When it first appeared, it outclassed every design we in the West had, and before long they had more T-64s than we had actual tanks. I don't care how old it is, when your side has a tank that both out performs and out numbers the enemy in every considerable way - that situation has never before happened in history. And it took us 30 years to come up with a tank that could even penetrate the front of it.
Beyond any doubt, the greatest, most revolutionary tank in history.
That's like asking "how bad was the M4 Sherman". Completely irrelevant.
And the T-72 and T-80 are showing their age pretty much the same as the M1 Abrams, which they are contemporary with.