Hello all! Hope you are enjoying the content lately! As you can see....TH-cam is not having any of my military content and I am struggling to make views. I would really appreciate if you could help me out by clicking the like button and also sharing this to your own social media or to your own outlets. It means a lot. Please keep safe and stay calm during this tough time. Have a wonderful day!! Matt
Tobe honest matt That t64 and t90 will be way too close to be a laser tank Just add some new electric generator and new armour and that will be awesome
The T64 at the beginning had a lot of problems with transmission and the engine and that's why the tank troops they where first deployed to where near the factory that made them. Once the bugs where ironed out and it had changed to the 125mm gun yeah I'll admit it was a force to be reckoned with the only tank to truly stand up to it at that time would have been the Chieftain tank with the 120mm rifled L11 gun and the soviets where worried by the Chieftain that's why the T72 was put into production being cheaper and with more being built to counter it. You didn't go into the T64's combat record it saw its firs combat in Moldova some where said to have served in Chechnya but limited and of course on both sides of the Ukrainian civil war the best version to date made by the Ukrainians called the T64 Bulat don't believe you didn't add it. See vid below. And you forgot that Nato has that superior gun depression and elevation going for them which they have proved in combat to be the winning factor with a very good trained crew. th-cam.com/video/SE59Q_PghCg/w-d-xo.html
I was a Chieftain crewman towards the end of the Cold War, we feared the 64 far more than we did the 72 and the early 80's (effectively based on the 64 but made more cheaply and in larger numbers). We knew it was only issued to professional elite units and not just conscript farmers sons, so it deserved to be given respect, yes compared to our gun kit it was limited in engagement ranges, however their ability to fire decent ATGW's through the gun tube negated this a lot. Very good wagons, I had my first ever meeting with a T-64 in Kiev (met lots of 55's, 62's and 72's over the years, but this was a first for me) a couple of weeks back and it never fails to amaze me how small they looked compared to contemporary Western wagons.
@@ГеоргийМурзич Mk.10 & 11's Chieftain's had a composite block on turret front and the hull protecting the front of the turret ring as part of the STILLBREW add on armour package. I think it was envisaged to be able to add ERA or similar in country to the hull like we did with the Challenger 1's in the first Gulf War if ever needed. It would have been a quick and easy fix to bodge up. The late models were very good tanks (even by today's standards and with a decent crew, they could still spoil your afternoon), just the powerpack let the old girls down as we all know. As for engagement ranges the L11A5 and gun kit of the Chieftain comfortably out ranged the 125mm and its somewhat more primitive fire control systems, especially on the Mk.11 which had TOGS, as this was exactly the same gun kit as fitted to Challenger 1, so it could see miles further too at night. Remember this is still the gun that holds the longest tank 'vs' tank kill.
@CAG Hotshot Lacking penetration power? While most nations still had 105mm guns the Soviets had a 125mm smoothbore which could fire 3BM22 which could punch through the lower glacis of Chieftain at 2km, the upper glacis at close range and the turret near the commanders hatch at about 1km. fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html
Post WW2 Soviet Army was all conscripted. However, they prepared us for it since childhood. We would start getting military training in school and they instill in us a lot of patriotism and the feeling that military service is a sacred duty that we all owed. Also, there was compulsory universal education, so even the "farmer's son" wasn't some illiterate third world monkey. It's not like the Western grunts are all "professor's sons" themselves. To be a tanker in the USSR, first of all you had to pass the height requirement... you couldn't be tall or you'd have too much trouble with the ergonomics in these super low profile vehicles. So, all the really short guys were generally assigned to tank forces. Whether they were assigned to the T-55 reserves in Norilsk or the T-64 in E. Germany depended on how they did in testing and training. A T-64 assignment required a full year of training too. Also, all the officers went through 4 years of sort of a military university, effectively getting a BA in military science. To get past the lower ranks, you then had to do more military school to get a "Master's".
T-64 wasn't elite units tanks. This is complete nonsense. T-64 was just hard as hell to operate it, so crews must be more expensed than on other tanks. Early T-72 versions was technically worser then T-64, but very soon later they outperform them in every aspect.
Hey Matt I'm really enjoying the increased tempo of AFV related videos you're putting out during this covid 19 quarantine. I work as a security guard and I'm doing extra coverage and a closed High School and your videos help keep me entertained and informed in between my rounds. Thank you.
The author is right. Much depends on the classification of the crew. At competitions "Strong Europe tank challenge 2017", the Ukrainian team used the T-64BV and took the penultimate place, defeating the Polish team that used the Leo2A5, although the Ukrainian tank is worse.
@Joshua Ngau Ajang the t62 cost a lot more than the t55, so the t55 out lived it in production. The T64 was way more. Key thing to note, no export variànts.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Although, the two only nations apart the Soviet that had the T-64A and the T-64B were East Germany and the Mongolian People's Republic.
Ahh the elite tank of the period. One of my favorite Soviet tanks just because of the smart packaging. Superior to the t72 in many ways and better by far than the M60. The ideological successor to the t80 and t14. Good stuff :) .
@@deptusmechanikus7362 Actually it was about equal in survivability as it received upgrades. It could actually find and engage targets at night which early T72 models couldn't. Yea it was more expensive but you got a small silhouette and extra features. It also was faster to load and fire. It shouldn't be compared to the T72 though.
@adidas with the amount of historical german songs sitting around on the net i cant really see that yours did the damage. but i guess thats up to the youtube algorithms to know
I would agree the T-64 was a tank to be feared. My old man was first a company commander then battalion commander of a Mechanized Infantry Unit in W. Germany from 1968 until 1975. He would deadpan joke that his units were to be "speed bumps" for the initial Warsaw PAC/Soviet armored Brigade advance.
Grubby bum because of the armor configuration I believe. Think they had small balls in the turret armor which made the production much harder and delicate(=higher cost) compared to the simplistic design of T-72
@@deptusmechanikus7362 You got any data on that? All the articles I've seen say they got the kinks ironed out, but the T-72 series was just cheaper to mass produce and also made in other WP countries -increasing interoperability. They switched out of them not because of performance, but because the army wanted to simplify their logistics.
Soviets/Russians have kept turning out excellent tank designs which honour the original main points of any true tank: a compromise between armour, armament and speed/mobility. As much as I love the Leopard II, it's extremely heavy (68.7 short tons). Same goes for the Challenger II (73.8 short tons) and even the M1 Abrams (60-73.6 short tons) still is 15-25 tons heavier than any Russian main battle tank (around 50(!) short tons). The World War Two era Tiger II tank weighed 76.9 short tons. Now most tank lovers will say, but those tanks still are rather fast and agile. All the same, on the Western European Theatre of War, West-Germany at the time, all tanks had to face on a lot of bridges and other river crossings. So there still would be bridges that would not be able to bear the weight of those mastodonts. And for crossing a river with special equipment to seal off the tank and install a tall vertical exhaust pipe, enabling it to drive through a river, not all river beds and especially the river banks may not be suited for this purpose. Any tank can break down or be immobilized without having much other damage. So how you're going to retrieve that tank and tow it back to friendly lines or the nearest repair facility?
The two tips i know to differentiate them easily is: - T-64 use all metal road wheels and have the IR spotlight on the opposite side of the coaxial gun (left side) - T-72 have rubber on the road wheels (its more comfortable) and the IR spotlight is on the same side of the coaxial gun (its safer for the driver)
@Kaiser Imtiaz Sikander Khan they would've been most probably T-80s ,since majority of t-64 stockage went to Kiev after USSR fall. Also Chechnya wars earned the t-80, especially it's gas turbine engine a very Bad reputation in the Russian Ground Forces Edit :- also second largest stockage of T-64 is maintained by Kazakhstan
uhh Nothing better than having matsimus's channel to watch during the zombie apocalypse, love your content dude as per usual and the rate your producing vidoes atm! keep it up man love it
@@JohnSmith-qv6hp for one, as usually in this case, it wasn't exactly fault of the tank. Also I don't think that top of the line T-64 were exported at all in Soviet Union - even WP nations didn't have access to it.
Пушку 115 мм. , имел танк Т-64 ( объект 432). 125 мм. пушку имел танк Т-64А ( объект 434). Я служил танкистом на Т-64А ( 1973 года выпуска, с зенитным зенитным пулемётом НСВТ) в Украине. 1975-1977гг.
Another good video matts glad you're staying safe , was the T-64 one of the reason why nato went so heavy on multi-targeting & missels because they realized it was a head of what we were building at the time & they could (in theory) turn em out like tractors ? Keep up the great work , best wishes to you , your doggo & your squad .
We also also take into account that NATO only became aware of the actual technical characteristics of the T-64 in the mid 70's which sent them into quite the panic. IF hostilities broke out then Nato would have been up against several thousand of these beasts with basically nothing comparable arriving before the 80's; the M1A1 only matched it's general capabilities in 1985.
@@yeah5992 american server is gone but then its now merged under Global server with constant updates. I play this daily after i play Warthunder. Most players are from RU and EU
I consider Steven Zaloga’s books on the T-34- the T-90 as bibles for soviet tank development and how much infighting there was surrounding these tanks, and I highly recommend them (cheap through amazon kindle)
12:10 this is actually incorrect, as T64s have been fighting in the Donbass war for roughly 8 years now. america actually got one as an export for study.
T-64 is a perfect example of a successful failure. The engine was and still is a failure while being the worlds most powerful diesel engine by volume and weight, while the suspension and tracks were and still are weak and prone to failure yet allow T-64 some the best mobility through snow and soft terrain in its class. While providing the best technical edge of its time, T-64 was a logistical nightmare, yet its engine was specifically set u for an easy swap in the field. T-80 was the necessary evolution of T-64, even though the gas turbine consumed 2 to 43 times the fuel as diesel counterparts.
This was a beast of a Tank... by the time it was built, NATO tanks were replacing 90mm cannons with the ever popular 105mm L7, and had 2 aproaches on mobility, the Leopard1 aproach of about no-armor above 20mm but high mobility vs the M48/60 aproach of comparatively limited mobility but good armor even against T-55's 100mm gun. When T-64 came in place both aproaches would had to face a good mobility massive firepower contender, T-64 was able to take frontal shots from any 60's NATO gun (unlike T-55 and T-62) but in return was able to shoot lethal rounds at 3x the distance (optics and aiming system is another issue). You can argue T-62 already pushed the firepower forward for Varsaw pact, so that T-64 wasn't that revolutionary... but T-64 was a T-55 chasis with a heavier gun, a stop-gap and didn't bring anything new to the table except extra firepower for T-55 at the expense of mobility and rate of fire. T-64 combined extra firepower (taking the MBT standars to 120mm) with better mobility (60km/h on road and about 40 to 45km/h offroad) and increased (frontal 105mm capable) protection, a balance NATO couldn't really surpass up until 80s with Leo2 Abrahams and Challenger among others The main drawback for the T-64 is that his unit cost made him kind of a "elite unit tank" while the backbone of the red army still relied mainly on T-55, that was in mid 60's ok but on pair or even starting to be slightly behind NATO counterparts
Actually the real drawback is that the T64, like all Soviet tanks had to completely expose itself to fire. The insane emphasis on low profile made depressing the main gun impossible
Christopher Velez oh yes the British chieftain, how many were built for the British army? And how many minutes do you think the British army would keep the Russians busy?? I’ll be extremely generous and say 40
@@petesy03 he isn't talking about the tank, he's talking about a historian who refers to himself as the chieftain and tours in and around tanks, posting the videos on TH-cam. He is an ex US army tanker, and gives his thoughts and opinions. He's well worth a watch.
Every decade produces a tank ahead of it's time. I think this was that tank for the 60's same as the Centurion was for the 40's. Some of the other decades it's a bit more debateable.
@Alexandr Noskov well kharkiv or kharkov is not a russian city. it is a historically ukrainian city, despite many of those people (ukrainians) speaking russian mainly. there are many russians or descendents of russians but it is majority ukrainian. the pronunciation is not to do with the ethnicity but actually the language. that is why many people in the city say kharkov, they are just speaking russian.
@Alexandr Noskov yes like most cities in russia, ukraine, belarus it was founded by russians. but at that time of 1654 there was really not a ukrainian people. but the cultures of ukraine and russia would split from eachother due to influence and mixing of other cultures in ukraine. this new culture was undeniably distinct from russia by 1764 where even the russian tsar declared it a distinct region, "novorossiya". the ukrainians (and belarusians) now had a distinct language which had been influenced by polish control over the area and the polish also realised that this language was distinct from their own. this also relates to the origin of the word "ukraine". it either came from the russian word for borderlands or it came from the ukrainian word for homeland. in both of these scenarios, it shows a distinct ukrainian culture. the ukrainian people were divided between russian and austrian control until 1917, when the russian revolution inspired the ukrainians to self-rule. the ukrainian ssr was established in 1919 and joined the ussr in 1922. from that point ukraine has been an official nation (even if fascist upa tells you it was 1991) with its own people, culture, and language. the city of kharkov has been inhabited by these peoples for centuries, which is why it belongs to ukraine today. in all these centuries of russian control you would think some tsar or dictator would take it if it was russian, no? and even with all these politics today, putin would not try to take it back? it's because kharkov or kharkiv and it's people are ukrainian. and the people there, while accepting of russian heratige and culture, strongly believe in their ukrainian identity. even the russian people from full russian descent who are born there believe that they are ukrainians.
The way I was taught to tell the difference was, the T-64 had a V splash bar and the T-72 had a straight one. Lots of other differences but that is a main 1. Stay safe Mat.
Ez to one shot slow 4 kph reverse no thermals no armor you can only stop 105mms no blowup pannels can't turn on place.. 64s Are bad in WT Yes i have 300 battles in T-80U i know what im talking about
@@koval_da I'm trying to unlock the T-80B and the T-80U, but I'm stuck with these tanks, it's alright for flanking, but not head on, and it's depends what type of ammunition
There's no shame in admitting that during the 50s - 60s the Soviets had some really neat tanks. That's because the USSR was good at building three things: Tanks, Small Arms and Propaganda. But every tank upgunned previous tanks. And as I said to a russian fanboy gushing about the Buran Space Shuttle, well, if you build something 10 years later and not make it better, after someone else layed the groundwork and proved all concepts that needed to be proven, that's a testament of incompetence.
Thauã Aguirre t64 is very different from t55 or t62. different hull, completely different suspension, engine. just the shape is similar. About the Buran stuff, the Energia rocket was the really special thing. The rd-170 engines, and the tech behind them was one of the very few things that the soviets was clearly better than the americans. But today, with Spacex, i think the americans are the best in every aspect of technology. Even russians use american(or israeli) designed computers, and using american jet engines in commercial flights.
Was the ROF much differeng for the 125mm gun on the T64? Did the auto loader change? I would expect it had too. Impressive ROF for the 115mm gun w autoloader
I started painting a Team Yankee Soviet force and wanted more info on some of these tanks I painted. This video showed up and I was impressed. Now I’m subbed and gonna watch a bunch more!
When threatened, the T-64 will extend his side skirts, making him appear bigger to deter larger predators. In a last ditch effort of fending off larger predators the T-64 is capable of throwing its turret, the turret most likely will not regrow. Upon death, the T-64 releases bright flashing chemicals coupled with a acrid odor to warn other T-64s of the impending danger
My question is what are the torque n/m values of that two-stroke diesel? 700 horses are great and all, but a lot of power production means nothing if the engine doesn’t make much power.
Seeing that everybody here is interested in history else you wouldn't be here.. This is literally the greatest crisis the planet earth has faced since the Second World War.
Please do a video/videos on the “new” calibers first military small arms - 6.5, .300 blackout, etc. Also, I would really like to see a video about the M14 and its modern iterations
@@JohnSmith-qv6hp I wasn't in an M 1. I was a navy corpsman attached to a marine unit. I was also at Khafji, when Iraqis took the town. Every time I've ever gone up against them, I was either dismounted, or in an apc.
Watched many videos and have always loved the content! As a former Bomber just wanna say Ubique and wish you all the best and hope you and yours stay healthy and happy.
T-64 actually seeing the battle right now in Ukraine because of the Russian invasion. Yes, they are in later modifications. But still, it is Ukrainian T-64 fighting T-64s and T-72 of Russian-terrorist troops.
I love it when people mock soviet tanks, but they were true innovators.First tank with smoothbore cannon, that everybody uses, T62, first APFSDS round, T62, first main battle tank with composite, T64.
looking at the figures the Russians were the first to mass produce the APFSDS in substantial with the first standard issue round being issued in 1962. in the same time frame the top 105mm APDS (L28 aka DM-13) could reliably penetrate the front plate of a T-62, HEAT and HESH were more than enough to punch through the turret . so it can be argued that at the time NATO had no real need for APFSDS. as we know... that all changed with the introduction of the T-64 which essentially made every nato round obsolete over night (very much Russia's 'Dreadnought' moment)fortunately the T-64 was so expensive it could not be mass produced to the degree Russia wanted interestingly the first ever APFSDS round is generally attributed to the British when ordinance engineers experimenting with the french APDS round (originally invented by the French Edgar Brandt company in 1940 prior to the German Occupation) added fins to the 'Dart' in order to make it more stable in flight. I suppose its only fitting that once again the British failed to capitalise on the break through they made (I'd class this at the same SNAFU level as giving the communists the Derwent V jet engine) with the APSFDS and the 'enemy' would pick it up where they left off taking the technology to a rather dizzying new height!
@@Pale_Nomad I remember that the soviets made their APFSDS rounds for the T62 not from expensive, ultra hard metals but from steel, which gave them one of the, if not the best kinetic round at the time, for a very reduced cost.
The T54-55 and T64 look pretty similar. The way we identified them was between the outer sights. The 64 has the round "hamburger" shaped sight, and the 54-55 has the "hotdog" shaped sight. If I remember correctly
A good way to differentiate the T-72 and T-64 from the front is their track width the T-72 actually has wider tracks however this is just my observation I may be wrong
Hi Matsimus, thanks a lot for another very interesting video! Really appreciate all the effort and time you out into your videos, keep up the great work 😊. Have you already made / are you considering making a video about the development of tanks (in this case russian/but also from other countries), like requirements/derived design features/realisation/ lessons learned/evolution? I bet that would be a great video to watch, coming from you 👍. All the best, stay healthy and greetings from Germany!
An excellent and informative video sir. But you did forget to mention the greatest advantage of the T-64; it was the only Soviet tank in which the commander could fire the DShK M-1938 Heavy Machine Gun from within a closed hatch. All the other tanks required the commander to open up and expose himself to fire it.
I think the most interesting feature of T-64 is the tiny road wheels. They are smaller than the M113 road wheels. The auto-loader borrows the previous battleship loading mechanism such as the chain push rod and the seperate ammo.
Ummm. Mat. Did you say that the T-64 have a 150 mm main gun at about 6:25 in the video? I have played that part several times and it sounds like 150 mm every time. And when i put on the tex it agreed that you said 150 mm. So the later models of T-64 tanks were nerfed and only received a puny 125 mm gun since the use of a 150 mm guns was not wery sporting or?
2a21 was not used for majority production. It was switched to 2a26 then the 2a46 fairly quick, furthermore the "shields" were to detonate HEAT munitions prior to hitting the side armor. They would fold out.
Great video, but could you put on the screen some of the specifiations? It is very hard to recognize it only by hearing, especialy if they have no name but military marking with many symbols, numbers and letters. For example, armour thicknes is easier to aquire if we can see it in chart or schematics. Regards.
Though autoloader has lots of pros, I was always thinking, that a fourth person in a tank would be very useful. As most of the time you're not fighting, but taking care of the tank and wenn you're fixing the tracks... Damn, a one more pair of hands would be very welcome :)
to distinguish 64 from 72, from the front projection, look at the triplex, the driver mechanic, from the side projection, look at the size of the wheels in the chassis.
Hello all! Hope you are enjoying the content lately! As you can see....TH-cam is not having any of my military content and I am struggling to make views. I would really appreciate if you could help me out by clicking the like button and also sharing this to your own social media or to your own outlets. It means a lot. Please keep safe and stay calm during this tough time. Have a wonderful day!! Matt
Tobe honest matt
That t64 and t90 will be way too close to be a laser tank
Just add some new electric generator and new armour and that will be awesome
I'll hit the bell when you stop shit posting. These videos are why I watch your content, but the slice of life garbage only clouds my feed.
im a simple guy, i click like everytime you post a video even before watching it
The T64 at the beginning had a lot of problems with transmission and the engine and that's why the tank troops they where first deployed to where near the factory that made them. Once the bugs where ironed out and it had changed to the 125mm gun yeah I'll admit it was a force to be reckoned with the only tank to truly stand up to it at that time would have been the Chieftain tank with the 120mm rifled L11 gun and the soviets where worried by the Chieftain that's why the T72 was put into production being cheaper and with more being built to counter it. You didn't go into the T64's combat record it saw its firs combat in Moldova some where said to have served in Chechnya but limited and of course on both sides of the Ukrainian civil war the best version to date made by the Ukrainians called the T64 Bulat don't believe you didn't add it. See vid below. And you forgot that Nato has that superior gun depression and elevation going for them which they have proved in combat to be the winning factor with a very good trained crew.
th-cam.com/video/SE59Q_PghCg/w-d-xo.html
Matsimus pls make a video about Romanias military!!!!!! PLSSSS
I was a Chieftain crewman towards the end of the Cold War, we feared the 64 far more than we did the 72 and the early 80's (effectively based on the 64 but made more cheaply and in larger numbers). We knew it was only issued to professional elite units and not just conscript farmers sons, so it deserved to be given respect, yes compared to our gun kit it was limited in engagement ranges, however their ability to fire decent ATGW's through the gun tube negated this a lot. Very good wagons, I had my first ever meeting with a T-64 in Kiev (met lots of 55's, 62's and 72's over the years, but this was a first for me) a couple of weeks back and it never fails to amaze me how small they looked compared to contemporary Western wagons.
"it was limited in engagement ranges"
Hmmm, weren't Chieftains lacking composite armor in the hull?
@@ГеоргийМурзич Mk.10 & 11's Chieftain's had a composite block on turret front and the hull protecting the front of the turret ring as part of the STILLBREW add on armour package. I think it was envisaged to be able to add ERA or similar in country to the hull like we did with the Challenger 1's in the first Gulf War if ever needed. It would have been a quick and easy fix to bodge up. The late models were very good tanks (even by today's standards and with a decent crew, they could still spoil your afternoon), just the powerpack let the old girls down as we all know. As for engagement ranges the L11A5 and gun kit of the Chieftain comfortably out ranged the 125mm and its somewhat more primitive fire control systems, especially on the Mk.11 which had TOGS, as this was exactly the same gun kit as fitted to Challenger 1, so it could see miles further too at night. Remember this is still the gun that holds the longest tank 'vs' tank kill.
@CAG Hotshot Lacking penetration power? While most nations still had 105mm guns the Soviets had a 125mm smoothbore which could fire 3BM22 which could punch through the lower glacis of Chieftain at 2km, the upper glacis at close range and the turret near the commanders hatch at about 1km.
fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html
Post WW2 Soviet Army was all conscripted. However, they prepared us for it since childhood. We would start getting military training in school and they instill in us a lot of patriotism and the feeling that military service is a sacred duty that we all owed. Also, there was compulsory universal education, so even the "farmer's son" wasn't some illiterate third world monkey. It's not like the Western grunts are all "professor's sons" themselves. To be a tanker in the USSR, first of all you had to pass the height requirement... you couldn't be tall or you'd have too much trouble with the ergonomics in these super low profile vehicles. So, all the really short guys were generally assigned to tank forces. Whether they were assigned to the T-55 reserves in Norilsk or the T-64 in E. Germany depended on how they did in testing and training. A T-64 assignment required a full year of training too. Also, all the officers went through 4 years of sort of a military university, effectively getting a BA in military science. To get past the lower ranks, you then had to do more military school to get a "Master's".
T-64 wasn't elite units tanks. This is complete nonsense. T-64 was just hard as hell to operate it, so crews must be more expensed than on other tanks. Early T-72 versions was technically worser then T-64, but very soon later they outperform them in every aspect.
Hey Matt I'm really enjoying the increased tempo of AFV related videos you're putting out during this covid 19 quarantine. I work as a security guard and I'm doing extra coverage and a closed High School and your videos help keep me entertained and informed in between my rounds. Thank you.
yeah...
he's awesome
@Ra Him I think that the word "in" was autocorrected to "and".
Finally a situation where CBRN protection is actually relevant.
Sit inside your IFV in full mopps kit, avoid coronavirus.
Lol so true
I regret skipping gas mask ads on covert cabal vids
I served so long ago we used to call it NBC.
Thought this was a Spanish comment and you were saying Cabrón
Ah the glorious soviet tonk that birthed composite armor into existence.
Da
in wider use yes but the real first was the siliceous cored armor in T95
Did the communists actually invent composite first?
@@calvincalvinify Well yes, but actually no. They were the first to put an effective composite armor scheme onto a production tank
@@ARC-Driver answer is simply no because he asked about inventing. so invent: USA , production: USSR
Matsimus is a Soviet spy confirmed
NYET!!!
Da. 👍👍
Blyat
Suka our agent compromised !
Он не шпион, товарищ.
The author is right. Much depends on the classification of the crew. At competitions
"Strong Europe tank challenge 2017", the Ukrainian team used the T-64BV and took the penultimate place, defeating the Polish team that used the Leo2A5, although the Ukrainian tank is worse.
The t64 was the first break from the JS series and t10 series. They were very innovative and a great concerns NATO when they came out.
But is still looks like a IS-3 from some angles.
we know, its after the t10 in the war thunder tree
@@m1a1abrams3 my knowledge comes with age. :-)
@Joshua Ngau Ajang the t62 cost a lot more than the t55, so the t55 out lived it in production. The T64 was way more. Key thing to note, no export variànts.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Although, the two only nations apart the Soviet that had the T-64A and the T-64B were East Germany and the Mongolian People's Republic.
The humility&frankness of your narration has helped me during shielding&isolation. Plus I'm seeing tanks unseen for decades.Thank you Matsimus!
Ahh the elite tank of the period. One of my favorite Soviet tanks just because of the smart packaging. Superior to the t72 in many ways and better by far than the M60. The ideological successor to the t80 and t14. Good stuff :) .
The M-60 actually defeated these in the Gulf War.
I was wrong. Such a mix of stuff.
@@thomasbertelsen4486 it defeated debuffed T-72s, which had worse armor than soviet-origin T-72A without air support, with awful shells and crews.
Superior to T-72 in many ways, except coast, reliability and survivability
@@deptusmechanikus7362 Actually it was about equal in survivability as it received upgrades. It could actually find and engage targets at night which early T72 models couldn't. Yea it was more expensive but you got a small silhouette and extra features. It also was faster to load and fire. It shouldn't be compared to the T72 though.
3:30...best camouflage ever!
I would have preferred a ring of flowers...
On what? Never saw nuthin.
No tank to be see here, just dirt and a branch
I can only see a branch flying bruh
At first I was like: wtf?
Where? What?
And then I saw it:
There was a fucking tank and I didn't even noticed
I'm pretty sure that Ukraine has used hundreds of T-64s in the Donbas War, which means that the T-64 has in fact seen combat.
Yes , 100%
You forgot that it was also capable of firing laser guided anti tank missile from its barrel. It was another first in tank building.
That auto loader is slick, I'd like to see one in real and watch the mechanics of it operate
Sad to see that such great and educational content gets double fisted by TH-cam ;(
And yet TH-cam allows bullshit channels with annoying robot voices.
VanderWall Stronghold, or torture.
SJ Ws do their best to k ill FB and YT
@adidas a good chance someone flagged that. flagging things as hate speech is super effective and gets things taken down almost immediately.
@adidas with the amount of historical german songs sitting around on the net i cant really see that yours did the damage. but i guess thats up to the youtube algorithms to know
I would agree the T-64 was a tank to be feared. My old man was first a company commander then battalion commander of a Mechanized Infantry Unit in W. Germany from 1968 until 1975. He would deadpan joke that his units were to be "speed bumps" for the initial Warsaw PAC/Soviet armored Brigade advance.
I loved the computer animation showing how the auto loader works for BOTH types of tanks!
Actually 64BV (on preview) was really good equipped, new fire control and armor, reactive blocks. As i know, it's still on armament in training units.
The best in the world when it first came out but as with all things cost plays a factor. 40% more than the t72 matters.
Autoloader on 72 is also better, safer and more reliable
Same goes for suspension.
And the engine
Why did it cost more? It looks a lot older than the t72.
Grubby bum because of the armor configuration I believe. Think they had small balls in the turret armor which made the production much harder and delicate(=higher cost) compared to the simplistic design of T-72
@@deptusmechanikus7362 You got any data on that? All the articles I've seen say they got the kinks ironed out, but the T-72 series was just cheaper to mass produce and also made in other WP countries -increasing interoperability. They switched out of them not because of performance, but because the army wanted to simplify their logistics.
@@lucidnonsense942 sure. Can you read fluent russian?
topwar.ru/9310-sravnenie-tankov-t-64-t-80-i-t-72-iz-lichnogo-opyta.html
Soviets/Russians have kept turning out excellent tank designs which honour the original main points of any true tank: a compromise between armour, armament and speed/mobility.
As much as I love the Leopard II, it's extremely heavy (68.7 short tons). Same goes for the Challenger II (73.8 short tons) and even the M1 Abrams (60-73.6 short tons) still is 15-25 tons heavier than any Russian main battle tank (around 50(!) short tons). The World War Two era Tiger II tank weighed 76.9 short tons.
Now most tank lovers will say, but those tanks still are rather fast and agile. All the same, on the Western European Theatre of War, West-Germany at the time, all tanks had to face on a lot of bridges and other river crossings. So there still would be bridges that would not be able to bear the weight of those mastodonts.
And for crossing a river with special equipment to seal off the tank and install a tall vertical exhaust pipe, enabling it to drive through a river, not all river beds and especially the river banks may not be suited for this purpose.
Any tank can break down or be immobilized without having much other damage. So how you're going to retrieve that tank and tow it back to friendly lines or the nearest repair facility?
Cold War vet here. The 64b terrified us back in the day.
0:55 “two weeks to flatten the curve” turned into a year and a half
Just in time for lunch here in Southeast Asia
Nice
Me too
Me to
The two tips i know to differentiate them easily is:
- T-64 use all metal road wheels and have the IR spotlight on the opposite side of the coaxial gun (left side)
- T-72 have rubber on the road wheels (its more comfortable) and the IR spotlight is on the same side of the coaxial gun (its safer for the driver)
Haven't T-64s been used in combat in eastern Ukraine?
So true, these tanks are used in Ukraine against Rebel forces
I think the only T64 tanks used in the Ukraine are the heavily upgraded T64BV
The T-64 BV is the backbone of armored core of Ukranian tank forces
@Kaiser Imtiaz Sikander Khan they mostly used t 80s ,t 62,t-54/55
@Kaiser Imtiaz Sikander Khan they would've been most probably T-80s ,since majority of t-64 stockage went to Kiev after USSR fall.
Also Chechnya wars earned the t-80, especially it's gas turbine engine a very Bad reputation in the Russian Ground Forces
Edit :- also second largest stockage of T-64 is maintained by Kazakhstan
T-64R is upgraded version of baseline T-64s to near T-64A level. The The number of produced T-64s of all variants ranges from 7.000 to 8.000.
The T-64 always been my favorite Soviet tank.
Same ✨
uhh Nothing better than having matsimus's channel to watch during the zombie apocalypse, love your content dude as per usual and the rate your producing vidoes atm! keep it up man love it
That sound of an 2-stroke diesel, pleases me, ALWAYS 👍🎵🎶
Especially the sound of it not starting again. Perfection 😉👌
@@deptusmechanikus7362 then it's settled. Agricultural (Soviet one, naturally) tractor it is 🚜
@@deptusmechanikus7362 or an ALCo one? th-cam.com/video/RHsp0Q6ISBo/w-d-xo.html
Glad you reviewed this Beast! imagine facing hundreds to thousands of these during the cold war, Scary!
Israel did in 73 and it was a massacre for the t series
@@JohnSmith-qv6hp for one, as usually in this case, it wasn't exactly fault of the tank. Also I don't think that top of the line T-64 were exported at all in Soviet Union - even WP nations didn't have access to it.
@@JohnSmith-qv6hp actually no ,most of them are t55/54
"STAY POSITIVE"
-wait
Did he fucking stutter?
Stay positive? Like tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2?
Well done, always entertaining . We need diversions like this to keep us sane, it really helps, thanks.
T-64 has a 125mm cannon, unsure but thought you mentioned it as a 115mm a few times
first 50 tanks had 115mm gun before the 125mm was available
Thanks for the clarification.
Пушку 115 мм. , имел танк Т-64 ( объект 432). 125 мм. пушку имел танк Т-64А ( объект 434). Я служил танкистом на Т-64А ( 1973 года выпуска, с зенитным зенитным пулемётом НСВТ) в Украине. 1975-1977гг.
Thank you for your videos ! Please , please, PLEASE.. keep the technical info coming, It makes the study complete.
I wouldn't mess with this tank while sitting in a M60.
Or in a Leopard 1 😂
Thanks for the motivation Mat-we gonna stay alert and safe. Nice video allota information and quality.
Those soviet MBTs are very iconic in their looks.
Beautiful, elegant machine. Kharkov design bureau was always ahead of it’s time.
Another good video matts glad you're staying safe , was the T-64 one of the reason why nato went so heavy on multi-targeting & missels because they realized it was a head of what we were building at the time & they could (in theory) turn em out like tractors ? Keep up the great work , best wishes to you , your doggo & your squad .
We also also take into account that NATO only became aware of the actual technical characteristics of the T-64 in the mid 70's which sent them into quite the panic. IF hostilities broke out then Nato would have been up against several thousand of these beasts with basically nothing comparable arriving before the 80's; the M1A1 only matched it's general capabilities in 1985.
This is my fav tank...love the side flaps...love the autoloader...I love it all
Matsimus, do you still play Armored Warfare? noticed that it is usually a reference video for your armored vehicle reviews.
Yeah, was asking myself the same thing
@@yeah5992 american server is gone but then its now merged under Global server with constant updates. I play this daily after i play Warthunder. Most players are from RU and EU
@@KiLDELTA mostly because we don't like launchers full of malware, to be honest.
I consider Steven Zaloga’s books on the T-34- the T-90 as bibles for soviet tank development and how much infighting there was surrounding these tanks, and I highly recommend them (cheap through amazon kindle)
12:10 this is actually incorrect, as T64s have been fighting in the Donbass war for roughly 8 years now. america actually got one as an export for study.
Hey. in which Graviteam game is there the t64? none of the Operation Star DLCs have it, nor does Steel Armor BoW.
T-64 is a perfect example of a successful failure. The engine was and still is a failure while being the worlds most powerful diesel engine by volume and weight, while the suspension and tracks were and still are weak and prone to failure yet allow T-64 some the best mobility through snow and soft terrain in its class.
While providing the best technical edge of its time, T-64 was a logistical nightmare, yet its engine was specifically set u for an easy swap in the field.
T-80 was the necessary evolution of T-64, even though the gas turbine consumed 2 to 43 times the fuel as diesel counterparts.
This was a beast of a Tank... by the time it was built, NATO tanks were replacing 90mm cannons with the ever popular 105mm L7, and had 2 aproaches on mobility, the Leopard1 aproach of about no-armor above 20mm but high mobility vs the M48/60 aproach of comparatively limited mobility but good armor even against T-55's 100mm gun.
When T-64 came in place both aproaches would had to face a good mobility massive firepower contender, T-64 was able to take frontal shots from any 60's NATO gun (unlike T-55 and T-62) but in return was able to shoot lethal rounds at 3x the distance (optics and aiming system is another issue).
You can argue T-62 already pushed the firepower forward for Varsaw pact, so that T-64 wasn't that revolutionary... but T-64 was a T-55 chasis with a heavier gun, a stop-gap and didn't bring anything new to the table except extra firepower for T-55 at the expense of mobility and rate of fire. T-64 combined extra firepower (taking the MBT standars to 120mm) with better mobility (60km/h on road and about 40 to 45km/h offroad) and increased (frontal 105mm capable) protection, a balance NATO couldn't really surpass up until 80s with Leo2 Abrahams and Challenger among others
The main drawback for the T-64 is that his unit cost made him kind of a "elite unit tank" while the backbone of the red army still relied mainly on T-55, that was in mid 60's ok but on pair or even starting to be slightly behind NATO counterparts
Actually the real drawback is that the T64, like all Soviet tanks had to completely expose itself to fire. The insane emphasis on low profile made depressing the main gun impossible
It's going to be a great day when The Chieftain gets his hands on a T-64 and/or T-72.
Christopher Velez T72 should be very easy.
Christopher Velez oh yes the British chieftain, how many were built for the British army? And how many minutes do you think the British army would keep the Russians busy?? I’ll be extremely generous and say 40
@@petesy03 he isn't talking about the tank, he's talking about a historian who refers to himself as the chieftain and tours in and around tanks, posting the videos on TH-cam. He is an ex US army tanker, and gives his thoughts and opinions. He's well worth a watch.
The_Victorious_1 cool , I didn’t know that, thank you👍
@@petesy03 no problem!
Every decade produces a tank ahead of it's time. I think this was that tank for the 60's same as the Centurion was for the 40's. Some of the other decades it's a bit more debateable.
3:06 kharkov is my home city :) but the "kh" is pronounced like h so you would say "harkov" or if you want to say in a more ukrainian way "harkiv"
2nd one is shurzyk?
@Alexandr Noskov well kharkiv or kharkov is not a russian city. it is a historically ukrainian city, despite many of those people (ukrainians) speaking russian mainly. there are many russians or descendents of russians but it is majority ukrainian. the pronunciation is not to do with the ethnicity but actually the language. that is why many people in the city say kharkov, they are just speaking russian.
@Alexandr Noskov yes like most cities in russia, ukraine, belarus it was founded by russians. but at that time of 1654 there was really not a ukrainian people. but the cultures of ukraine and russia would split from eachother due to influence and mixing of other cultures in ukraine. this new culture was undeniably distinct from russia by 1764 where even the russian tsar declared it a distinct region, "novorossiya". the ukrainians (and belarusians) now had a distinct language which had been influenced by polish control over the area and the polish also realised that this language was distinct from their own. this also relates to the origin of the word "ukraine". it either came from the russian word for borderlands or it came from the ukrainian word for homeland. in both of these scenarios, it shows a distinct ukrainian culture. the ukrainian people were divided between russian and austrian control until 1917, when the russian revolution inspired the ukrainians to self-rule. the ukrainian ssr was established in 1919 and joined the ussr in 1922. from that point ukraine has been an official nation (even if fascist upa tells you it was 1991) with its own people, culture, and language. the city of kharkov has been inhabited by these peoples for centuries, which is why it belongs to ukraine today. in all these centuries of russian control you would think some tsar or dictator would take it if it was russian, no? and even with all these politics today, putin would not try to take it back? it's because kharkov or kharkiv and it's people are ukrainian. and the people there, while accepting of russian heratige and culture, strongly believe in their ukrainian identity. even the russian people from full russian descent who are born there believe that they are ukrainians.
The way I was taught to tell the difference was, the T-64 had a V splash bar and the T-72 had a straight one. Lots of other differences but that is a main 1. Stay safe Mat.
Nope, both have the same splash bar, but they are easy to identify from the tracks and roadwheels
Soviet tanks are my favourite in war thunder, I unlock the T-64A and T-64B, and it's a beast against NATO tanks
Ez to one shot slow 4 kph reverse no thermals no armor you can only stop 105mms no blowup pannels can't turn on place.. 64s Are bad in WT
Yes i have 300 battles in T-80U i know what im talking about
@@koval_da I'm trying to unlock the T-80B and the T-80U, but I'm stuck with these tanks, it's alright for flanking, but not head on, and it's depends what type of ammunition
It's russian game, it's normal that NATO sucks.
@@vasiliynikiforov1976 NATO sucks? Leclerc Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 are better than T-80U
@@vasiliynikiforov1976 F-4E(j) is better than SMT
the t64 was one of the reasons for the a10 tank buster. the US concluded tank for tank they were outmatched but in the air ... maybe not.
There's no shame in admitting that during the 50s - 60s the Soviets had some really neat tanks. That's because the USSR was good at building three things: Tanks, Small Arms and Propaganda.
But every tank upgunned previous tanks. And as I said to a russian fanboy gushing about the Buran Space Shuttle, well, if you build something 10 years later and not make it better, after someone else layed the groundwork and proved all concepts that needed to be proven, that's a testament of incompetence.
Thauã Aguirre t64 is very different from t55 or t62. different hull, completely different suspension, engine. just the shape is similar. About the Buran stuff, the Energia rocket was the really special thing. The rd-170 engines, and the tech behind them was one of the very few things that the soviets was clearly better than the americans. But today, with Spacex, i think the americans are the best in every aspect of technology. Even russians use american(or israeli) designed computers, and using american jet engines in commercial flights.
Was the ROF much differeng for the 125mm gun on the T64? Did the auto loader change? I would expect it had too. Impressive ROF for the 115mm gun w autoloader
RuSsIaN bIaS
No but seriously love your videos mate.
Thank you Mat. Keep up the good work.
M48 Patton MBT, M60 Patton MBT and UH-1 helicopter videos please.
I'm pretty sure he did one on the M60
@@atts_other_at No, it was specifically about an upgrade program and not the history of it.
@@andyfriederichsen he went over the history in the video if i remember correctly
@@atts_other_at I don't think he mentioned very much of the history.
Great video! I’m glad TH-cam recommended it late rather than never 👍🏼
T-64 has different road wheels to the T-72.
He literally said that in the video
A FLAW that was not repeated on t72.a single hit above those road wheel is enough to decapitate the turret out of the tank.
@@hermanman8235 The larger road wheels also gave the T-72 better mobility
I started painting a Team Yankee Soviet force and wanted more info on some of these tanks I painted. This video showed up and I was impressed. Now I’m subbed and gonna watch a bunch more!
I as well
When threatened, the T-64 will extend his side skirts, making him appear bigger to deter larger predators. In a last ditch effort of fending off larger predators the T-64 is capable of throwing its turret, the turret most likely will not regrow. Upon death, the T-64 releases bright flashing chemicals coupled with a acrid odor to warn other T-64s of the impending danger
Very nice video. Thanks, Mat have a nice weekend
6:00 I wonder how the Cheftain would've faired in the Yom Kippor War against the T64.
I don't think t-64 were ever exported overseas, so it's more likely the chieftain would face the inferior T-62
My question is what are the torque n/m values of that two-stroke diesel? 700 horses are great and all, but a lot of power production means nothing if the engine doesn’t make much power.
Seeing that everybody here is interested in history else you wouldn't be here..
This is literally the greatest crisis the planet earth has faced since the Second World War.
It being blown up. People also had warning. When you hear Sheeple, now you know.
Also, the real scam was the Stock Market alight of hand.
Please do a video/videos on the “new” calibers first military small arms - 6.5, .300 blackout, etc.
Also, I would really like to see a video about the M14 and its modern iterations
"If you didn't enjoy today's video please hit that like button..." hhmmmmmm
Can we all take a moment to appreciate how awesome the engine sounds at the end.
"Stay positive"
.
.
.
Very poor choice of words
Well done Matt. I think we could all live in an NBC overpressured MBT at this time :) Take care of your family too.
Having gone up against soviet tanks during desert storm, and in africa, I have a healthy respect for them.
You mean they were excellent for target practice WTF how many coalition tanks were lost to enemy.fire
@@JohnSmith-qv6hp I wasn't in an M 1. I was a navy corpsman attached to a marine unit. I was also at Khafji, when Iraqis took the town. Every time I've ever gone up against them, I was either dismounted, or in an apc.
Watched many videos and have always loved the content! As a former Bomber just wanna say Ubique and wish you all the best and hope you and yours stay healthy and happy.
T-64 actually seeing the battle right now in Ukraine because of the Russian invasion. Yes, they are in later modifications. But still, it is Ukrainian T-64 fighting T-64s and T-72 of Russian-terrorist troops.
I love it when people mock soviet tanks, but they were true innovators.First tank with smoothbore cannon, that everybody uses, T62, first APFSDS round, T62, first main battle tank with composite, T64.
looking at the figures the Russians were the first to mass produce the APFSDS in substantial with the first standard issue round being issued in 1962. in the same time frame the top 105mm APDS (L28 aka DM-13) could reliably penetrate the front plate of a T-62, HEAT and HESH were more than enough to punch through the turret . so it can be argued that at the time NATO had no real need for APFSDS. as we know... that all changed with the introduction of the T-64 which essentially made every nato round obsolete over night (very much Russia's 'Dreadnought' moment)fortunately the T-64 was so expensive it could not be mass produced to the degree Russia wanted
interestingly the first ever APFSDS round is generally attributed to the British when ordinance engineers experimenting with the french APDS round (originally invented by the French Edgar Brandt company in 1940 prior to the German Occupation) added fins to the 'Dart' in order to make it more stable in flight.
I suppose its only fitting that once again the British failed to capitalise on the break through they made (I'd class this at the same SNAFU level as giving the communists the Derwent V jet engine) with the APSFDS and the 'enemy' would pick it up where they left off taking the technology to a rather dizzying new height!
@@Pale_Nomad I remember that the soviets made their APFSDS rounds for the T62 not from expensive, ultra hard metals but from steel, which gave them one of the, if not the best kinetic round at the time, for a very reduced cost.
Haha, so the Russian bias in WoT and WT Ground is historically accurate? WoW;)))))))))
Only if you look at the actual weapons that existed. :)
Too nice video with clear explaining characters of T 64 ..welcome friend thanks for sending video 👍👍
The T54-55 and T64 look pretty similar. The way we identified them was between the outer sights. The 64 has the round "hamburger" shaped sight, and the 54-55 has the "hotdog" shaped sight. If I remember correctly
Indeed. A striking difference if you can see the tank from the side is the road wheels. Also, the tank is a bit longer and wider than the T-54/55
@@cczevak5313 wasn't the T-64 series tank used in the Russian Afghanistan conflict?
A good way to differentiate the T-72 and T-64 from the front is their track width the T-72 actually has wider tracks however this is just my observation I may be wrong
9:34 what game is this ?
Hi Matsimus, thanks a lot for another very interesting video! Really appreciate all the effort and time you out into your videos, keep up the great work 😊.
Have you already made / are you considering making a video about the development of tanks (in this case russian/but also from other countries), like requirements/derived design features/realisation/ lessons learned/evolution? I bet that would be a great video to watch, coming from you 👍.
All the best, stay healthy and greetings from Germany!
An excellent and informative video sir. But you did forget to mention the greatest advantage of the T-64; it was the only Soviet tank in which the commander could fire the DShK M-1938 Heavy Machine Gun from within a closed hatch. All the other tanks required the commander to open up and expose himself to fire it.
I think the most interesting feature of T-64 is the tiny road wheels. They are smaller than the M113 road wheels. The auto-loader borrows the previous battleship loading mechanism such as the chain push rod and the seperate ammo.
The T-64 was specifically designed for use in a nuclear war. Therefore, he has rollers without rubber bandages.
Whats that outro music? I hear it everywhere online when mentioning Russia/USSR, but I've yet to see a title or artist attached to it
Great video as always buddy
Ummm. Mat. Did you say that the T-64 have a 150 mm main gun at about 6:25 in the video? I have played that part several times and it sounds like 150 mm every time. And when i put on the tex it agreed that you said 150 mm. So the later models of T-64 tanks were nerfed and only received a puny 125 mm gun since the use of a 150 mm guns was not wery sporting or?
Its 115mm gun..
Thanks. Loved the vid. In Philly I am Tone
2a21 was not used for majority production. It was switched to 2a26 then the 2a46 fairly quick, furthermore the "shields" were to detonate HEAT munitions prior to hitting the side armor. They would fold out.
You are Canada’s greatest export. Always happy when you make a video on Soviet tanks.
It's come up on my feed so TH-cam is still pushing your vids but I'm subscribed anyway.
Fantastic video Matt very interesting
Another great video, please keep it up!
I think your historical analysis are awesome great stuff thx
love these types of videos man please keep up the good work man
Great video, but could you put on the screen some of the specifiations? It is very hard to recognize it only by hearing, especialy if they have no name but military marking with many symbols, numbers and letters. For example, armour thicknes is easier to aquire if we can see it in chart or schematics. Regards.
Though autoloader has lots of pros, I was always thinking, that a fourth person in a tank would be very useful. As most of the time you're not fighting, but taking care of the tank and wenn you're fixing the tracks... Damn, a one more pair of hands would be very welcome :)
thats why sovjet maintenance platoons were larger than NATO ones
Mat let me ask you you did any vid about AT guns? Like the most known AT guns in the actuallity?
Great vid Mats
to distinguish 64 from 72, from the front projection, look at the triplex, the driver mechanic, from the side projection, look at the size of the wheels in the chassis.
Thanks very much for a superb video 👍 Stay blessed
I never knew that the T-64 was so very impressive and amazing type of MBT, until i saw and learn to this video 👍👍