There's a reason heavy APCs/IFVs are usually tracked and not wheeled. It's probably faster on a road than most vehicles of that class (that are tracked), but most AFVs don't spend their time at top speed, moving from place to place. Unless it's intended for rapid deployment over long ranges, with many paved roads, there's no way this really makes sense for most countries. City states like Singapore are one of the few examples where it might be useful.
@@josephd.5524 T-64a weight is 38 tons. Btr-80(borrowed wheel base) weight is 15 tones. No turret and UFP and no ammo thats minus 15 tons easily. Minus tracks , roadwheels suspension arms thats minus 5 tons. so we get 18-20 tons at a shorter wheelbase than BTR. BTR-4 is around 20 tons as well so It would perform just fine.
@dukenukem8381 or Alternatively they are intentionally done so to reduce ground pressure as it has the ability to inflate or deflate tires on its own.
No, it's dumb due to being a wheeled heavy APC. BTR-4 already struggles off-road, these would be even less capable. There is a better solution specifically in APC variant, which is BMO-T (not the Terminator, Terminator=BMPT), which is just a slightly modified T-72 hull, albeit it was built on 72B chassis instead of older 72s. At least afaik the BMO keeps the old UFP
@@-WarCriminal-22 heavy APC with wheels is not good idea but converting T-72 Ural-1/M or T-55 type tank into Heavy IFV might be normal. (but still it costs money so yea but might be cheaper a bit and make the tank useful for longer time)
@@unknownname6519 that one's not an APC, but yeah it's cool concept if done properly. Honestly the best would've been the BTR-T, conversion of T-55 hulls developed by Omsk Bureau. It would allow for more T-72s to be kept as MBTs, while recycling older tanks from storage and freeing up a lot of lighter APCs to be sold to combat zones across the globe. A lot of countries still use BTR-60, had Omsk's idea take off we'd probably see lots of 80s and 70s instead of extremely outdated 60 (which could be useful to make a military truck of sorts, kinda like MT-LB but wheeled and unarmoured except for driver and the engine). Maybe even would get to see 80s with plates out of 60s welded on top of existing armor, somewhat like how I've seen Russian/Ukrainian soldiers do with their 70/80s in 2022. At least I hope so, seeing as apparently humans are extremely irrational at times. Like why would Americans just throw tanks and trucks into the sea after WW2? Or throw M60 Pattons into the sea in 2000s? And it wasn't even that much, could've just dumped it to Taiwan and double the amount of tanks they had at the time lmao
Seems like most successfull prototype that did not reach production I have seen in decades. *The UMBS-64 and the BMP-V-64 seems like to ideal investment.*
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems far simpler to build a hull from scratch that works as an APC without having to go to the effort of chopping up a tank?
Just about the most expensive part, in terms of energy and materials, of an armored vehicle is the armor and structural plating. To make a new APC from scratch would require forging and casting tons of metal, which in turn means tons of oil and gas burned. The Soviet Union already paid a fortune back in the day to make the robust T64 hulls, and by recycling them, Ukraine saved a fortune in energy and metal it did and doesn't have. Bear in mind, Ukraine was and is not rich in industrial resources. They were and are mostly farmland with most industrial raw materials and energy imported. When the USSR was making T64, they brought the stuff to the Ukraine to make the tanks. When the USSR fell apart, Ukraine lost access to the imports that made their tank factories work.
As much the West and media wants you to believe. Soviets tanks were never outdated and highly versatile if your economy is capable of keeping up with the cost. Plenty of countries have modified the hulls of T-64s, 72s, 80s and 90s even going as far as the 62.
@@subjectc7505 as simplicity goes Soviet tanks were always simple, plenty and relative cheap to produce. Even a basic T64 can run over troops and protect agains rifle/machinegunfire. And as modern anti tank weapons goes it doen't matter if you are in an old or the most modern tank the change you die is slightly less.
@Frille512 As those early cold war tanks goes they have the big advantage they can't be jammed/hacked due to lack of electronics. At the spearhead in modern frontlines they are ofcourse more vulnerable due to outdated armour protection ,fire, and sighting equipment. Drone warfare and modern handheld antitank weapons currently defeat modern armour. A new armsrace armour versus defeating armour is developing now. Tanks are rarely used against other tanks. Infantry and airpower knock out the majority of tanks. For picking of APC/AFV/soft vehicels or using them as self propelled artillery you don't need the most modern type of tank.
@@obelic71 You can't hack a tank einstein, they don't have wifi. The only reason old armor is being used is because the only other option is to throw it away and buy/make new stuff. A T64 is absolutely an outdated and obsolete piece of metal.
10:06 any idea what that thing around the barrel is? At first I though muzzle velocity sensor, but it looks very different from what I expected. Or is it just structural?
The original 2a72 gun is very slanted. When firing, it dangles like a sausage. It is difficult to hit at long distances. This casing is a guide and dampens the vibrations of the barrel, thereby increasing accuracy. Kharkov tuning of the Soviet gun.
BMP-K-64 reminds me of an enlarged 8X8 atv designs: all-wheel drive , skid steer (with added armor). However, wheels seem rather narrow, compared to both ATVs terra tires and tank track witdhs. So, in theory, the BMP-K-64 could be optionally equipped with add-on tracks, just like an ATV, provided that the side skirt armor plates could be removed and customized to accommodate wider wheels and tracks. Could something similar to these T-64 conversions be done with the existing stock of M60 tanks?
In someway I have some doubts if its realy chaper to demontage an old traked T-64 to an Usefull(!) 8x8 Apc.. or if its not effectiver to build an wheeed Apc from scrach.
@henk5225 mhh, but a tank has only 2 wheels driven by the engine and this Apc has 8 wheels driven by the engine, you have to reconstruct so much and add so many new parts in it , I guess a new construction of an 8x8 apc for the same price will be more capable.
@@swisstestpilot they would cut holes for the driveshafts and weld in supports for the gearboxes and cadans and it's a way to reuse your old stock instead of scrapping it
After Russia as successor of USSR and China that used ex-Soviet equipment, Ukraine, Serbia and former SFYR make one of the most interesting vehicles on basis on Soviet and NATO equipment or hybridized them.
It just came at the wrong time. In the era of GWOT it was just unwanted. Two decades later in a LSCO enviroment commanders would apperciate such a heavy apc/ifv
I don't know anything about this vehicle, but I assume 1 or 2 were built to undergo some trials, and that's it (failing to secure any contracts for this model).
Interesting video, you can always rely on Tank Encyclopaedia to bring you something new to you. I’m just thinking with all the work conversation work going into T-64. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to build new vehicles?
At the time, Ukraine was unable to build a new vehicle. They had to make due until the T-84 came even that was limited. Going indigenous isn't always the cheapest depending on your economy situation.
To heavy for the wheels and tires, I trained US Cavalry Scouts for 11 years as a reservist I liked the M113 family I dislike the Hummers The Bradly's were just entering the reserve side when I retired in Dec 98. They have done very well with Ukraine so far.
There's no real need for that level of armour in western doctrine for a vehicle carrying a squad sized element. Definitely a cool prototype but I imagine the lack of interest was more of a "why do we need this" rather than anything in particular being wrong with it. Though I imagine weight would be a concern for a lot of nations.
but... how cheap is to chop a tank and weld it back together in different configuration? it seems that there is lots and lots of work and cant be all that cheap at all
Cheap is relative. Building one from scratch is certainly more expensive. But I'm with you; with an ever increasing price of steel, I wonder if they couldn't have made more money just melting them down. Switching to WW2 for a moment; when Germany built the Marder TD series on old/damaged 38(t) chassis, they realized that the amount of manhours to strip down an obsolete or damaged tank to the bare metal was equal to the manhours needed to build a new chassis. In the end about 90% of Marders (Grille etc.) were built on factory-fresh chassis. But other than with BMP-K-64, there was high demand for SPGs. Of course money/costs were relative terms in Nazi Germany ...
@@ottovonbismarck2443 In 90-00s in Ukraine you were happy to have any job really. You have management looking for a way to save the plant, endless BTRS and endless T-64s , A crane, welder and tank plant worked happy they are not laid off. Its simple as that.
When you have a stock load of damn near everything it's quite cheap then you think. The US is experimenting with Frankenstein damaged fighters with new hulls.
Kharkov (Kharkiv on the Ukrainan) produced T-64 and they had the line as well spare parts. Also They produced T-80 series, and it was only place that made T-80UD btw. Also the had only T-72A (or it list majority of the that type)
T-72A is a worse tank than T-64bv or later Bulat. Also Ukraine can/could produce T-80ud/ T-84/BM oplot tanks which areeven better. But due to Indians choosing to buy 1000 russian t-90s instead of Ukrainian BM oplots Ukraine was left with no contract except Thailand one.
Because unlike what the numbers would suggest the T-72 was not an improvement over the T-64 as it was meant to be cheaper to produce. Considering the Soviet Union has always had a quantity over quality approach the T-64 was too expensive per unit so they just downgraded it until they got to a price per unit that they were willing to pay. Another downside the T-64 had was that whilst it had better specs it also required more maintenance as a result, which is not something the Russian military has ever been good at. if your goal is to field as many tanks as possible that are as easy to maintain as possible then you go with the T-72. However if you're willing to have a tank fleet that is inferior in numbers, but one on one superior then you go with the T-64. Ukraine was never going to be able to field as many T-72's as Russia simply because they have a much lower population than Russia so for them it makes sense to keep the superior tank type in operation. Another reason was simply a matter of logistics. Most of the T-64 was produced in Ukraine and most of the T-72 was produced in Russia so it was easier for Ukraine to retain the T-64 and easier for Russia to retain the T-72 without major additional investments.
@@dukenukem8381 It was easy dessison for the Indians because they already operate T-72M1 or localy made equvalent T-72 Ajeya. And yes T-72B is the first T-72 that is on pair with T-64/80 series.
270mm is proof against a lot more than a 25mm gun at 500m. Are you sure you didn't mean the side armour? The flat 102mm side armour sounds more like rated against that sort of stuff.
More simple sistem for expluatation and isolation to protect people inside. Biddest problem it cancel 30mm uranim ammo erly 2000x. Because USA an Russia try kill UA weponon on global market. For example make google senator Obama(after that pres) visit to Ukraine.
It is good for Ukraine to be self-reliant. As I have noticed recently, Ukrainians are complaining about a shortage of armored vehicles and tanks and for some reason the West does not want to give Ukraine what it wants. It is unlikely that Ukraine will manufacture heavy armored vehicles like this in wartime. But we have recently seen Ukrainian light armored vehicles enter the war that were built during the war.
Like, what's the point of taking a tank apart only to reassemble it as a wheeled "H"APC without the frontal protection of a tank? At least BMO-T is simple and quick to do
The idea is commendable, but they should consult with the Israelis (I assume they may have at some point) because the Israeli army has been taking old tanks of all sorts and reconfiguring them into APCs that are decently rugged.
Interesting. Not just a "Kangaroo" mod of the T-64. This is more like they went full "Israeli" in design. Until IFVs get some kind of high-certainty hard-kill system for drones, I don't think the extra money needed for a heavy tracked infantry carrier is worth it.
The israelis did it too, captured lots of various soviet MBTs from the arab countries that tried to invade them and converted them into heavy APCs that can stand their ground even in urban combat. The israelis are really clever.
If Ukraine didn't have to go through what is happening today with Putin invading. I'm sure they could have made improvements and found custormers for this project.
TY-Nice work to get these out there....If I think as a Russian armored colonel , these would be breach vehicles, along with the mine clearing turtle tanks, all with jammers, and the anti drone nets. High speed for after the breach would see them go deep. Good re task of outdated hulls.
What happened to the original narrator owner of the channel..? It gave it much more personality before. Such a shame to see that like since 3 americans complains he hired a narrator which makes it alot more corporate feeling as hiring a narrator cant imrpov or guess what you think and know. Very little room for jokes its just not the same channel anymore
I'm still here, I'm an editor for the website. I wasn't ever meant to be the main narrator for the channel, that was just because we were trying to get the channel off the ground. Also, never made any jokes that were offscript (and, to be honest, never quite had scripts. Most of the old videos are just me reading the website articles verbatim)
As I know, there was also version like Israel's Merkava, made from t-64 heavy BMP, with "stock" tank cannon. Maybe, also with autocannon or with machine gun. Or, maybe, it was from T-84.
what a pointless development... as almost all their projects - stick with one of the most problematic soviet designs (T-64) and be surprised it doesn't work...
How to say "I don't actually understand reality but that's not going to stop me" without actually saying those words. *Think* about why they would stick with T-64. It's something they could make and maintain, it's better than the T-72 in many ways. They had lots of T-64s and not much money. Does any of that give you a clue? Try to understand the world is a lot more complicated than you think.
@@dukenukem8381The T-64 used an opposed piston diesel engine instead of the older v-engines. This was chosen to save space (Soviet tanks were compact because Russian railroad tunnels are absurdly small). The main flaw of an OP engine is oil leakage, as one side of the engine hangs upside down, and oil falls down from the cylinder heads. This created a fire hazard and a maintenance headache. There were also chronic track shedding issues, and the early models of the 2A46 cannon were utter shit in terms of accuracy and barrel wear. In terms of cost, the engine was five times more expensive in materials and manpower than the good old V-engine, so when Uralvagonzavod proposed the cheaper T-72 in the late 1960s, it was a no brainer move to the new tank.
@@petergray2712 2-stroke opposed piston 5tdf diesel doesn't have engine heads. Nobody moved to T-72 after it started production. T-72 and T-64 were produced concurrently and together used 2a46 of different modifications. "Good old Kharkiv-V2 engine" and its derivatives to this day have problems with self-destructing harmonics and ungodly motor oil consumption. Its much harder to maintain and install than 5tdf engines and silly fan drive design takes up to 50hp to run which- T-64 simply doesn't need. T-64b FCS and turret and T-64bv ERA layout is far superior to T-72A and B. T-80 used this turret and layout and is direct descendant to T-64BV. T-64 has best offroad capabilities of all soviet tanks has roadwheels you can actually lift and change by yourself opposed to 300kg t-72 roadwheel.
@dukenukem8381 The switch back to the 5tdf was on coat grounds. Seeing that it was a 30+ year old design that first graced the BT-series, it's no surprise that it suffers from excessive vibration
Я видел эти фотографии ещё в 2014 году. Там мастер дядьку Тарас в грязной тельняжке со сварочный аппаратом и линейкой воял это зодчество что бы показать Парашенко. Но не это главное. Каким образом они собирались управлять этой малиной на колёсах не предназначены для этого веса, хотя бы на скорости сорок км час? 😂😂. Оно бы разбортировалось сразу. Да и хрен так повернешь по танковому на колёсах. 100 к час заявленная скорость. Это было смешно тогда, а сегодня просто цирк.
There is only one single example of this technique. This program has long been closed, since the inspection showed that the technology does not meet the criteria at all and further development is not capable Further development is not possible due to the existing facts that all the money intended for development was stolen. Further investigation showed that there was a complete lack of any documentation or plans for further action, as this program was created only to steal the allocated money. Don't be surprised, this is typical for modern Ukraine, I think not only Ukrainians but also Western officials have become accustomed to this. After all, they are throwing billions to the thief Zeoensky, money not from their own pockets, but the people’s money. There were already a thousand similar programs in Ukraine. Trump promised a major investigation into the disappearance of the money allocated to Zeoensky.
With that level of armor and only eight wheels the ground pressure must have been crazy. Greatly limiting off-road mobility.
There's a reason heavy APCs/IFVs are usually tracked and not wheeled. It's probably faster on a road than most vehicles of that class (that are tracked), but most AFVs don't spend their time at top speed, moving from place to place. Unless it's intended for rapid deployment over long ranges, with many paved roads, there's no way this really makes sense for most countries. City states like Singapore are one of the few examples where it might be useful.
Its not tank level of armor, its completely different.
@@dukenukem8381
Uh, the side armour is 102mm- that's much higher than any IFV on the field today and is, in fact, tank-levels of protection.
@@josephd.5524 T-64a weight is 38 tons. Btr-80(borrowed wheel base) weight is 15 tones.
No turret and UFP and no ammo thats minus 15 tons easily. Minus tracks , roadwheels suspension arms thats minus 5 tons. so we get 18-20 tons at a shorter wheelbase than BTR. BTR-4 is around 20 tons as well so It would perform just fine.
Frontal armour was cut off check the photo.
Wheels that are designed for a 13.5 ton BTR-80 transplanted onto a 21.5 ton vehicle, they are flat in half the photos for a reason.
Btr-4 weights around 20 tons and just fine. Tires are deflated because its an abandoned prototype.
@dukenukem8381 or Alternatively they are intentionally done so to reduce ground pressure as it has the ability to inflate or deflate tires on its own.
these wheels are known to handle up to 150tons in heavy transport vehicles.
@@Kill4Time255 I think you mean Mzkt maz rocket transport wheels , they are different wheels.
@@Kill4Time255 those aren't the same wheels, they might look alike but that's it. Maybe they're even different sizes actually.
It would look at home in most military sci-fi movies.
It looks like a propverhicle from a movie!
I like how it looks.
Like all prototypes (Kf51 lol)
Thought the same thing. It’s cool as hell.
Colonial marines type vehicle 😂
this recycling plan is pretty good idea for T-64A variants and T-72 Ural-1/T-72M tanks.
The Plan is to modify the t72 to a bmp-t72.. At least for Russia..
@unknownname6519 or for Post-Soviet countries.
No, it's dumb due to being a wheeled heavy APC. BTR-4 already struggles off-road, these would be even less capable. There is a better solution specifically in APC variant, which is BMO-T (not the Terminator, Terminator=BMPT), which is just a slightly modified T-72 hull, albeit it was built on 72B chassis instead of older 72s. At least afaik the BMO keeps the old UFP
@@-WarCriminal-22 heavy APC with wheels is not good idea but converting T-72 Ural-1/M or T-55 type tank into Heavy IFV might be normal. (but still it costs money so yea but might be cheaper a bit and make the tank useful for longer time)
@@unknownname6519 that one's not an APC, but yeah it's cool concept if done properly. Honestly the best would've been the BTR-T, conversion of T-55 hulls developed by Omsk Bureau. It would allow for more T-72s to be kept as MBTs, while recycling older tanks from storage and freeing up a lot of lighter APCs to be sold to combat zones across the globe. A lot of countries still use BTR-60, had Omsk's idea take off we'd probably see lots of 80s and 70s instead of extremely outdated 60 (which could be useful to make a military truck of sorts, kinda like MT-LB but wheeled and unarmoured except for driver and the engine). Maybe even would get to see 80s with plates out of 60s welded on top of existing armor, somewhat like how I've seen Russian/Ukrainian soldiers do with their 70/80s in 2022. At least I hope so, seeing as apparently humans are extremely irrational at times. Like why would Americans just throw tanks and trucks into the sea after WW2? Or throw M60 Pattons into the sea in 2000s? And it wasn't even that much, could've just dumped it to Taiwan and double the amount of tanks they had at the time lmao
Seems like most successfull prototype that did not reach production I have seen in decades. *The UMBS-64 and the BMP-V-64 seems like to ideal investment.*
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems far simpler to build a hull from scratch that works as an APC without having to go to the effort of chopping up a tank?
Just about the most expensive part, in terms of energy and materials, of an armored vehicle is the armor and structural plating. To make a new APC from scratch would require forging and casting tons of metal, which in turn means tons of oil and gas burned. The Soviet Union already paid a fortune back in the day to make the robust T64 hulls, and by recycling them, Ukraine saved a fortune in energy and metal it did and doesn't have.
Bear in mind, Ukraine was and is not rich in industrial resources. They were and are mostly farmland with most industrial raw materials and energy imported. When the USSR was making T64, they brought the stuff to the Ukraine to make the tanks. When the USSR fell apart, Ukraine lost access to the imports that made their tank factories work.
chopping up the tank is necessary since each costed about ~500 dollars per day for all the system maintenance without any benefit
Wheeled T-64 🥶or tracked BTR 🥵
Meanwile the T64 became not outdated.
As much the West and media wants you to believe. Soviets tanks were never outdated and highly versatile if your economy is capable of keeping up with the cost. Plenty of countries have modified the hulls of T-64s, 72s, 80s and 90s even going as far as the 62.
@@subjectc7505 as simplicity goes Soviet tanks were always simple, plenty and relative cheap to produce.
Even a basic T64 can run over troops and protect agains rifle/machinegunfire.
And as modern anti tank weapons goes it doen't matter if you are in an old or the most modern tank the change you die is slightly less.
@@obelic71 An ancient tank is not outdated when fighting against ancient equipment is what you mean.
@Frille512 As those early cold war tanks goes they have the big advantage they can't be jammed/hacked due to lack of electronics.
At the spearhead in modern frontlines they are ofcourse more vulnerable due to outdated armour protection ,fire, and sighting equipment.
Drone warfare and modern handheld antitank weapons currently defeat modern armour.
A new armsrace armour versus defeating armour is developing now.
Tanks are rarely used against other tanks.
Infantry and airpower knock out the majority of tanks.
For picking of APC/AFV/soft vehicels or using them as self propelled artillery you don't need the most modern type of tank.
@@obelic71 You can't hack a tank einstein, they don't have wifi. The only reason old armor is being used is because the only other option is to throw it away and buy/make new stuff.
A T64 is absolutely an outdated and obsolete piece of metal.
10:06 any idea what that thing around the barrel is? At first I though muzzle velocity sensor, but it looks very different from what I expected. Or is it just structural?
The original 2a72 gun is very slanted. When firing, it dangles like a sausage. It is difficult to hit at long distances. This casing is a guide and dampens the vibrations of the barrel, thereby increasing accuracy. Kharkov tuning of the Soviet gun.
@@СтепанМельничук-ь4ю It helps keeping it stiff during action. Understood.
BMP-K-64 reminds me of an enlarged 8X8 atv designs: all-wheel drive , skid steer (with added armor). However, wheels seem rather narrow, compared to both ATVs terra tires and tank track witdhs. So, in theory, the BMP-K-64 could be optionally equipped with add-on tracks, just like an ATV, provided that the side skirt armor plates could be removed and customized to accommodate wider wheels and tracks.
Could something similar to these T-64 conversions be done with the existing stock of M60 tanks?
they flip it around! thats great. otherwise having engine in back you make it pain in the ass to exit/enter
Enter brilliant russian bmp-3/bmd-1,2,3,4
Have you considered making a video on the Azovets tank support vehicle?
In someway I have some doubts if its realy chaper to demontage an old traked T-64 to an Usefull(!) 8x8 Apc.. or if its not effectiver to build an wheeed Apc from scrach.
it's going to be cheaper cause you are reusing the old existing parts, and not manufacturing and researching new ones.
@henk5225 mhh, but a tank has only 2 wheels driven by the engine and this Apc has 8 wheels driven by the engine, you have to reconstruct so much and add so many new parts in it , I guess a new construction of an 8x8 apc for the same price will be more capable.
@@swisstestpilot they would cut holes for the driveshafts and weld in supports for the gearboxes and cadans and it's a way to reuse your old stock instead of scrapping it
How many wheels are powered?
After Russia as successor of USSR and China that used ex-Soviet equipment, Ukraine, Serbia and former SFYR make one of the most interesting vehicles on basis on Soviet and NATO equipment or hybridized them.
I like it. An AMX 10 RC w/ 2 more wheels! 👍👍
something is not right with the frontal armour of the K64. if its really 270mm thick, it can withstand a hell of a lot more than 25mm APDS!!!!!
Can you review the tank obj 770
It just came at the wrong time. In the era of GWOT it was just unwanted. Two decades later in a LSCO enviroment commanders would apperciate such a heavy apc/ifv
I don't know anything about this vehicle, but I assume 1 or 2 were built to undergo some trials, and that's it (failing to secure any contracts for this model).
Interesting video, you can always rely on Tank Encyclopaedia to bring you something new to you.
I’m just thinking with all the work conversation work going into T-64. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to build new vehicles?
Cheaper - probably not. Easier - probably yes. I give them credit for thinking this through. Keeping jobs - politics - might have played a role.
@ the keeping skilled workers is a very good point
At the time, Ukraine was unable to build a new vehicle. They had to make due until the T-84 came even that was limited. Going indigenous isn't always the cheapest depending on your economy situation.
5:18 This looks surprisingly roomy!
To heavy for the wheels and tires, I trained US Cavalry Scouts for 11 years as a reservist I liked the M113 family I dislike the Hummers The Bradly's were just entering the reserve side when I retired in Dec 98. They have done very well with Ukraine so far.
There's no real need for that level of armour in western doctrine for a vehicle carrying a squad sized element. Definitely a cool prototype but I imagine the lack of interest was more of a "why do we need this" rather than anything in particular being wrong with it. Though I imagine weight would be a concern for a lot of nations.
New war thunder vehicles by chance?
6:37 Like the AMX-10RC not innovative really but still cool.
Looks awesome
but... how cheap is to chop a tank and weld it back together in different configuration? it seems that there is lots and lots of work and cant be all that cheap at all
Its cheap when you have a endless tanks, A tank plant and underpaid Eastern European workforce . Especially at the time.
Cheap is relative. Building one from scratch is certainly more expensive. But I'm with you; with an ever increasing price of steel, I wonder if they couldn't have made more money just melting them down.
Switching to WW2 for a moment; when Germany built the Marder TD series on old/damaged 38(t) chassis, they realized that the amount of manhours to strip down an obsolete or damaged tank to the bare metal was equal to the manhours needed to build a new chassis. In the end about 90% of Marders (Grille etc.) were built on factory-fresh chassis. But other than with BMP-K-64, there was high demand for SPGs. Of course money/costs were relative terms in Nazi Germany ...
@@ottovonbismarck2443 In 90-00s in Ukraine you were happy to have any job really. You have management looking for a way to save the plant, endless BTRS and endless T-64s , A crane, welder and tank plant worked happy they are not laid off. Its simple as that.
When you have a stock load of damn near everything it's quite cheap then you think. The US is experimenting with Frankenstein damaged fighters with new hulls.
Israel do it all the time. They converted tanks all time to different configurations. MainlY APC
They need a 30mm chain gun. It's bigger than the Bradley chain gun.
the real cybertruck
7.0 br seems perfect to me, take it or leave it
I think it had potential but to me they needed to have it more like a Bradley fighting vehicle, that would have been more useful.
Why did they not keep the T-72 instead of the T-64?
Kharkov (Kharkiv on the Ukrainan) produced T-64 and they had the line as well spare parts. Also They produced T-80 series, and it was only place that made T-80UD btw. Also the had only T-72A (or it list majority of the that type)
T-72A is a worse tank than T-64bv or later Bulat. Also Ukraine can/could produce T-80ud/ T-84/BM oplot tanks which areeven better. But due to Indians choosing to buy 1000 russian t-90s instead of Ukrainian BM oplots Ukraine was left with no contract except Thailand one.
Because unlike what the numbers would suggest the T-72 was not an improvement over the T-64 as it was meant to be cheaper to produce. Considering the Soviet Union has always had a quantity over quality approach the T-64 was too expensive per unit so they just downgraded it until they got to a price per unit that they were willing to pay. Another downside the T-64 had was that whilst it had better specs it also required more maintenance as a result, which is not something the Russian military has ever been good at. if your goal is to field as many tanks as possible that are as easy to maintain as possible then you go with the T-72. However if you're willing to have a tank fleet that is inferior in numbers, but one on one superior then you go with the T-64. Ukraine was never going to be able to field as many T-72's as Russia simply because they have a much lower population than Russia so for them it makes sense to keep the superior tank type in operation.
Another reason was simply a matter of logistics. Most of the T-64 was produced in Ukraine and most of the T-72 was produced in Russia so it was easier for Ukraine to retain the T-64 and easier for Russia to retain the T-72 without major additional investments.
@@dukenukem8381 It was easy dessison for the Indians because they already operate T-72M1 or localy made equvalent T-72 Ajeya. And yes T-72B is the first T-72 that is on pair with T-64/80 series.
@@w0lfgm T-72B has worse FCS than T-64/80
hang on a second the tracked one looks like BTR-K kamysh from arma 3
better go with tracks,im not expert but it make sence to me espetialy to operate in mud and it gives room to modernisation and increasing weight
270mm is proof against a lot more than a 25mm gun at 500m.
Are you sure you didn't mean the side armour?
The flat 102mm side armour sounds more like rated against that sort of stuff.
To me the weird part is proposing to take a 125mm turret off a tank hull and putting a 90mm turret in its place.
More simple sistem for expluatation and isolation to protect people inside.
Biddest problem it cancel 30mm uranim ammo erly 2000x.
Because USA an Russia try kill UA weponon on global market.
For example make google senator Obama(after that pres) visit to Ukraine.
I like the T-64, it was pretty good for its time, however; it was known for being super expensive…
Good Idea, if your ask me. Too bad they aren't making them now.
I have seen so many unrealistic, or even outright stupid projects like this. This one in comparison seems surprisingly plausible.
It is good for Ukraine to be self-reliant. As I have noticed recently, Ukrainians are complaining about a shortage of armored vehicles and tanks and for some reason the West does not want to give Ukraine what it wants. It is unlikely that Ukraine will manufacture heavy armored vehicles like this in wartime. But we have recently seen Ukrainian light armored vehicles enter the war that were built during the war.
Hey gaijin! BMPT-64 when!?
Like, what's the point of taking a tank apart only to reassemble it as a wheeled "H"APC without the frontal protection of a tank? At least BMO-T is simple and quick to do
Storage.. the photos looked more like an iron enriched compost
Do NOT mount externat fuel tanks by the only door
Just make driving drones of them
Bet some would wish one of the tracked prototypes be like Ukrava (Ukrainian Merkava) tank
$25 Temu drone and a left over 40mm with duct tape will still defeat it tho...
Ty brotha
Awesome
The idea is commendable, but they should consult with the Israelis (I assume they may have at some point) because the Israeli army has been taking old tanks of all sorts and reconfiguring them into APCs that are decently rugged.
Interesting. Not just a "Kangaroo" mod of the T-64. This is more like they went full "Israeli" in design.
Until IFVs get some kind of high-certainty hard-kill system for drones, I don't think the extra money needed for a heavy tracked infantry carrier is worth it.
5000 T55!!
nice
Amx10rc steering style
Whats it matter, they dont even last in the battlefield
It's a shame Ukraine sold most of it's Post-Soviet army.
Just update the tank
More like temporary vehicles since Ukraine may end changing from eastern bloc to NATO based weaponry
The israelis did it too, captured lots of various soviet MBTs from the arab countries that tried to invade them and converted them into heavy APCs that can stand their ground even in urban combat. The israelis are really clever.
If Ukraine didn't have to go through what is happening today with Putin invading. I'm sure they could have made improvements and found custormers for this project.
TY-Nice work to get these out there....If I think as a Russian armored colonel , these would be breach vehicles, along with the mine clearing turtle tanks, all with jammers, and the anti drone nets. High speed for after the breach would see them go deep. Good re task of outdated hulls.
W ai content
$70 9.7
Robust piece of kit for sure.
What happened to the original narrator owner of the channel..? It gave it much more personality before. Such a shame to see that like since 3 americans complains he hired a narrator which makes it alot more corporate feeling as hiring a narrator cant imrpov or guess what you think and know. Very little room for jokes its just not the same channel anymore
I'm still here, I'm an editor for the website. I wasn't ever meant to be the main narrator for the channel, that was just because we were trying to get the channel off the ground. Also, never made any jokes that were offscript (and, to be honest, never quite had scripts. Most of the old videos are just me reading the website articles verbatim)
guys do you need someone to correct the subtitles? there are dozens of errors in these. i'd be happy to do it, for a reasonable fee.
This is a fails reel
BTR T is heavier th-cam.com/video/wYZcYhy9Iw8/w-d-xo.html
gajin pls
СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I know, there was also version like Israel's Merkava, made from t-64 heavy BMP, with "stock" tank cannon. Maybe, also with autocannon or with machine gun. Or, maybe, it was from T-84.
look at how they massacred my boi
When you just say fuck it ! 😂
Still looks 'soviet' relic's
Great vehicles
The Ukrainian domestics MIC is quite somehting
@fabovondestory it's called a scam like everything else from ookrraine
Waste of effort
what a pointless development... as almost all their projects - stick with one of the most problematic soviet designs (T-64) and be surprised it doesn't work...
How is it problematic ? Early production had engine problems ? What tank doesn't have teething issues ?
How to say "I don't actually understand reality but that's not going to stop me" without actually saying those words.
*Think* about why they would stick with T-64. It's something they could make and maintain, it's better than the T-72 in many ways. They had lots of T-64s and not much money.
Does any of that give you a clue?
Try to understand the world is a lot more complicated than you think.
@@dukenukem8381The T-64 used an opposed piston diesel engine instead of the older v-engines. This was chosen to save space (Soviet tanks were compact because Russian railroad tunnels are absurdly small). The main flaw of an OP engine is oil leakage, as one side of the engine hangs upside down, and oil falls down from the cylinder heads. This created a fire hazard and a maintenance headache. There were also chronic track shedding issues, and the early models of the 2A46 cannon were utter shit in terms of accuracy and barrel wear. In terms of cost, the engine was five times more expensive in materials and manpower than the good old V-engine, so when Uralvagonzavod proposed the cheaper T-72 in the late 1960s, it was a no brainer move to the new tank.
@@petergray2712
2-stroke opposed piston 5tdf diesel doesn't have engine heads.
Nobody moved to T-72 after it started production. T-72 and T-64 were produced concurrently and together used 2a46 of different modifications. "Good old Kharkiv-V2 engine" and its derivatives to this day have problems with self-destructing harmonics and ungodly motor oil consumption. Its much harder to maintain and install than 5tdf engines and silly fan drive design takes up to 50hp to run which- T-64 simply doesn't need.
T-64b FCS and turret and T-64bv ERA layout is far superior to T-72A and B. T-80 used this turret and layout and is direct descendant to T-64BV. T-64 has best offroad capabilities of all soviet tanks has roadwheels you can actually lift and change by yourself opposed to 300kg t-72 roadwheel.
@dukenukem8381 The switch back to the 5tdf was on coat grounds. Seeing that it was a 30+ year old design that first graced the BT-series, it's no surprise that it suffers from excessive vibration
Gg
Я видел эти фотографии ещё в 2014 году. Там мастер дядьку Тарас в грязной тельняжке со сварочный аппаратом и линейкой воял это зодчество что бы показать Парашенко. Но не это главное. Каким образом они собирались управлять этой малиной на колёсах не предназначены для этого веса, хотя бы на скорости сорок км час? 😂😂. Оно бы разбортировалось сразу. Да и хрен так повернешь по танковому на колёсах. 100 к час заявленная скорость. Это было смешно тогда, а сегодня просто цирк.
There is only one single example of this technique.
This program has long been closed, since the inspection showed that the technology does not meet the criteria at all and further development is not capable Further development is not possible due to the existing facts that all the money intended for development was stolen.
Further investigation showed that there was a complete lack of any documentation or plans for further action, as this program was created only to steal the allocated money.
Don't be surprised, this is typical for modern Ukraine, I think not only Ukrainians but also Western officials have become accustomed to this.
After all, they are throwing billions to the thief Zeoensky, money not from their own pockets, but the people’s money. There were already a thousand similar programs in Ukraine. Trump promised a major investigation into the disappearance of the money allocated to Zeoensky.
dude doesnt have L button on his keyboard
also implying its not typical for Russia to steal even more money from its army is hysterical
Stryker from Temu. Shop like a millionaire
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣