The Tank Russia Is Really Starting to Regret
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- Play War Thunder now for free with my link, and get a massive bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more: playwt.link/da...
----
At the end of the Cold War, the sizeable Communist empire of the Soviet Union shattered into several independent states. While most faced economic challenges, they inherited well-armed militaries.
One of the weapons they were left with was the T-64.
Born at the height of the Cold War, the T-64 was a marvel of its era with trailblazing attributes: a robust engine, an automatic loading system, superior composite armor, and a shield against nuclear, biological, and chemical threats.
However, despite its groundbreaking innovations, the T-64's potential was initially overshadowed by its hidden shortcomings.
Now, in a twist of destiny, Ukraine has rekindled the might of the T-64, turning it against its erstwhile allies. As the echoes of a bygone era reverberate, this Cold War beast has risen, proving that its battle spirit remains undiminished.
-
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -
Play War Thunder now for free with my link, and get a massive bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more: playwt.link/darkdocs_
The premium time is definitely going to help out with the F14A, B and F16C grind. Thank you very much gaijin 😋
t64 is winning ukraine war... or not
Assumptions circulated repeatedly regarding the background and details of the current Ukrainian crisis are overwhelmingly corrupt and inaccurate. The most objective and knowledgeable source today for the current and historical perspective of Ukraine and our corrupt involvement to force this crisis is from retired Col. MacGregor (former senior advisor to the acting Secretary of Defense), who is not hostage to the current administration -- or the politics of either party. He is also a proponent of establishing a new party to attract people from both major parties to restore legitimate communication and intentions within government -- if for no better reason than to avoid the unnecessary wars supported by illegitimate narratives passed on to the public as well as others circulated on the basis of privilege with even more potential for deception . .
(Never ending crises)
. . in the name of security as well as eugenics based concepts in an initiative-free networking process to distract people from the awareness for any responsibility that cannot be found for such concerns -- requiring only the circulation of information in repetition no differently than the public to manage perception, and the notion that extreme self-interest at some point just decided to step aside and allow all of this concern to come through and yet not a clue where initiative lay regarding so much concern. Figureheads such as Claus Schwab and Bill Gates are not a point of initiative in any regard to eugenics related narratives and agendas.
I didn’t know they got all scrongly like that
war thunder sucks! why play it ?
T-64 was an absolute monster for it's era. Composite armor, APFSDS smoothbore cannon and two plane stabilizers at the time the US was still using M48 was such an insane power gap. But yeah, it all came to an end with 80s and Soviet economical stagnation. The West caught up and far exceeded what once was a source of Soviet pride.
And Russia's population is continuing to decline by measurable amounts every year. Last article I found cited 0.5% a year. That's not much, but after a couple decades.................
@@jimmiller5600 Same for most of Europe tbh. Some European nations have it even worse than that
you forgot the M60 Patton tank series was present during the cold war.
@jimmiller5600 Every day it declines thanks to the Ukraine.
From 1960 on, the US used the M-60 series as it's Main Battle Tank.
T72 is not a derivative of the t64. They were developed side by side by competing firms
No its bullshiet, T64 had several cons with engine and sustainability on top of that it was too expensive even for USSR to produce in huge amount, so they created more simplified, cheaper, easier to maintain version - T72
@@user-it8ym6yl3dOnly one plant could produce its engines and it was in Ukraine- which didn’t make sense in case of big war. Even now Ukraine can’t repair them.
@@user-it8ym6yl3d well Object 172 was effectively a T-64 just with a T-62 engine. however the T-72 proved to be really a better designed especially with the autoloader and having larger roadwheels which gave better offroad performance. The road wheels would influence t-80's double roadwheel construction. After 1974 T-64 and t-72 became two separate programs. the T-72 had better protection while the T-64/T-80 series had better FCS.
@@nemisous83 Well, your story is complete bs... T-72 was inspired by T-64 but the whole point was to make a tank that was not as advanced as T-64 but much easier to produce = cheaper.
T-72 got 90% of T-64 combat capability but you could produce 2.5* T-72 for a price of a single T-64.
Mechanicaly this two tanks were completely differenct from day one...
The only "better" about T-72 was the fact that USSR was able to sell them all over the world with huge profit.
They also made B version with more advanced turret armor, but the export verions was T-72M and that is just T-72A.
@@Bialy_1 first off that's not true. Object 172 was started because UVZ couldn't source the T-64's complex and arguably fragile components for production. So Object 172 was launched as a way to utilize the proven engine and transmission of the T-62. Overtime UVZ replaced so many parts on the vehicle that by 1974 when T-72 Ural entered service it had little to no parts commonality between it and T-64. If you look at the Object 172 (which was the prototype of T-72) it is effectively a T-64A with the 580hp engine of the T-62.
T-64 and T-72 were both parallel developments throughout the cold war. However most of the "advanced features" on the T-64 came with the BV model which benefited from the development of T-80 things such as a laser range finder, ballistic computer, cross wind sensor, and explosive reactive armor.
T-72M isn't a development of T-72B. T-72M is just an export T-72 Ural and the T-72M1 is the export version of the T-72A. The export model of the T-72B is the T-72S. The main reason T-72 was license produced over T-64 wasn't because of some secret sauce it's because no one wanted it and the cost to tool up for it. They would rather tool up for T-72 which utilizes a lot of parts used in the T-54/55 and T-62. KPT tried to license produced T-64 to East Germany however they opted to produce T-72M1 instead.
When I was stationed in West Germany with 2d ACR some 35-plus years ago, our primary opponent if the "balloon ever went up" in Europe was an Independent Tank Regiment of T-64s. At that time, we had M1s with the older 105mm main gun that wasn't reliable against the front armor of a T-64. We developed some terrain-specific tactics to maximize our lethality with the M1s and quickly figured out how to integrate the TOW-2 missiles on the M3A1 Bradleys. I'm glad that we never had to find out whether or not those tactics would have worked.
The USA always wanted the Rh 120mm gun on the Abrams but a full range of ammunition wasn’t yet available so they settled on the 105mm L7 for the M1A1 as an interim. Likely very effective with DU.
That seems to be the current tank battle doctrine: tanks cover bradleys, bradleys cover infantry, infantry cover tanks. The bradleys can use their cannon to suppress infantry and TOW's to take out big targets and speed to flank.
The Russians in Ukraine are still using the old Soviet strategy of tanks, tanks, and more tanks. It's proven to work very poorly against the multitude of fast-moving anti-tank weapons, similar to your outlined tactic.
I worked with TOWs for almost 20 years. I've been on Russian tanks, been inside. The things are not built very well, as a matter of fact in my opinion their pieces of crap. I've got a pretty good imagination but it's very very difficult for me to imagine those things could survive a hit from an M1 Abrams, even with the 105 gun. Those things are garbage and a great example was that they were decimated in huge numbers in Iraq. M1's had a lot of kills I don't really see what has changed between that time and now. The M1 Abrams and the challengers are like the Terminators of the battlefield. Can you kill them, yeah but it's going to take a lot of work and it's a freakishly dangerous thing to try. I was airborne infantry the vast majority of that time working on TOW's and the one thing that I've noted about the Abrams is just like the terminator, you bargain with it, you can't reason with it, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are toast! I love that line.
@@mrgrinch837 im sure they did feel like crap, they were designed to be as cheap as possible. the entire soviet doctrine was always to rely on the sheer numbers should any serious conflict arrive. a good example of this, there are 14 seperate components in a single M1A1 T156 track Link or shoe. russian tank tracks have a total of 2 components in each track link. they use floating track pins with a shoulder on one side. this means they wont come out one way but they work their way out the other way (towards the tank). a big lump of metal is welded to the hull which the pins will hit against and be knocked back into place. pretty? no, quiet? no, cheap? yes, easy to fix? yes.
I'm just an 11 Hotel that almost got into M1's while on active duty. Wasn't able cuz they promoted me out of the category. I do know that there was a not-so-friendly fire incident where an M1 was hit by two Hellfire missiles fired from an Apache (not the brightest crew in the air, obviously slept through the Armor ID class). The only injury was one of the crew members was burned from a ruptured hydraulic line. It was able to crawl away under its own power. Knowing that in one of their last conflicts the Israelis ran out of live Warhead TOW missiles and were forced to use their practice rounds in combat. Same weight same velocity. The effect was a hit to the turret would disable the tank knocking the turret off its ring and also disabled the crew who is to this day still asking people to answer the damn phone! We got a lot of these tanks donated from the Israeli government afterwards. Point is, if an M1 Abrams can take two hits from a Hellfire which weighs in at 110 lb, exactly twice the weight of a tow and flies close to the velocity of 0.6 the speed of sound and shrug it off I'm pretty sure it would beat the living hell out of Russian tanks. This Beast is the Terminator.@@SMVB-cl6oc
Much much better cohesion between video and narration. I really enjoyed the vid. And as a former M1A1 crewman (91-94, 1CD, Ft. Hood), as proud as I am of that part of my life, I’m just glad that I, in a tank or otherwise, won’t have to go to war. Just far too old now.
Don't be so sure the Army crosses the Southern Border, unchecked.
What was it like serving in the Abrams? Im thinking about going armor myself for my career path in the army
I know the feeling! The heart's there, but the body won't follow!!😂😂😂
Good to know about the relevance between the video and narration - I had just written a comment expressing my concern and asking if it had improved from DarkSkies. I had unsubscribed for about a year now, trying again to see if there’s been a change for the better.
If this nation ever descends into civil war, with Constitutional rights stripped from the citizens by whatever government has taken control, would you say that you were still too old then?
Actually T-64 was one of the best tanks made by the Soviet Union. It cost to build and the length of time for construction were main factors why the T-72 was designed and built. The T-72 could be built faster at a lower cost more quickly.
That's my understanding also @abbottshaull9831.
T 72 was pretty much also an export tank to support the allies of the Soviet Union, which you usually don’t do with your high end military technology. You create a workhorse for that. It was a solid tank while the T-64 was an attempt to create the most advanced tank design that was possible - at the cost of incredible maintenance.
The cost you mean
U rly think the M48 from the USA can fight it?@@daleshelden8394
I think a lot of it is perceived effectiveness. At the start of the war, the T64 was the oldest tank in use (T62, 55/54 were not frontline vehicles for Russia) and all the theoretical comparisons suggested the most T72 and T80 were superior and T90M totally outclassed it, and so everyone expected the T64 to be steamrolled, and yet Ukraine was able to match up, probably through defender advantage and just good tactics.
Plus the T64 largely shares the same gun as the newer T-Series tanks as well as modern optics, ERA etc and only lacks slightly in mobility performance.
The fact it is still one of the oldest tanks on the field and still seems to be in reliable, useful numbers that Ukraine can still depend on it is impressive.
Ukraine largely used western tactics combining their entire arsenel (arty, infantry, etc) while Russia was only using tanks and more tanks. You rarely see Russian tanks supported by infantry & vice versa.
The T64 was too complex to maintain and too expensive to produce. Russia has always favoured "quantity over quality" and so they adopted the T72 in massive numbers.
The T72, ironically, was actually the stripped down, simpler and cheaper export version OF the T64. It was in many ways an inferior tank.
@@hydrocarbon8272 Tactics often mean more than tech. Look at Vietnam: the USAF focused on better tech, better missiles, and better electronics for their planes while the USN focused on pilot training and towards the end of the war the kill:death ratio for the US Navy far out classed the US Air Force. Similar story with Israel where they often faced Arabs with better weapons, better tech, and more men and vehicles but the Israelis had better trained soldiers and better tactics and they often won. Even in their first war in 1948 they won largely thanks to the Jews having an army made up largely from WW2 veterans and seasoned partisans and resistance fighters whereas the Arabs had an army of inexperienced, untrained fanatics and parade ground soldiers and even though the Arabs had equal or better arms they still lost.
@@arthas640 just want to correct that during the Nakba and subsequent 1948 war the Israeli forces were mostly paramilitary militias trained and armed by the British occupation force during the 30s and 40s and ww2 veterans bolstered their ranks
T-64 > T-72, but nearly 3 times the price. T-90 is a modified T-72, just a rebranding and upgrade, because T-72 was USSR, russia wanted it's own tank. Prestige.
"For its Era". Yes more than 40 plus years ago the T64 Was an reliable and robust modern tank. However in today's battle field it has a less than 50% chance of surviving any major Fire or frontline engagement. Like most Russian arms the T64 was riddled with engineering woes, poor maintenance and less than stated spec's and abilities. However it forced the West into rethinking today's Modern Battletank. The T64's greatest flaw is its lack of top side turret protection. Generally one or 2 hits from a relatively light charge can cause the tanks too literally blow their turrets at alarming rates. Ukraine is littered with broken and burned out T64 hulks. Its absurd really.
The Engine twin crank opposed pistons two stroke was based on the L60 Leyland Tank engine that the Russians managed to get hold of. The Germans in WWII had developed this concept for an aero engine. The Brits went one more stage and developed a three crankshaft design used in Marine applications and trains. That was called the Deltic. Two cranks spun one way and the third the other way to get the right phasing of the timing. No poppet valves at all as it was a two stroke, just holes in the liners at bottom of the stroke leading to intake ports. It needed supercharging to function and turbos for maximum efficiency. You can see the engine running in trains on CZcams just look up the Deltic Engine.
Yup! I saw a couple of Deltic videos thanks to a friend of mine! One hell of an engine!
Thats not too out of line how two stroke gas engine work. While two stroke gas engines don't have a turbo per-sey, they do use positive pressure from the crank shaft/crank case to force fuel/air into the cylinder and also help evacuate exhaust. The two-stroke diesel works the same way just without a spark plug.
Fairly sure the diesels.dont pressurize the crankcase. Don't quote me though
Thats incorrect. The 5tdp is built off the x layout 28 cylinder for object 430 experiment and was originally going to be a 4 cylinder 4tdp but ended up with a 5th cylinder. It was inspired by the idea of the jumo 205 however they share nothing in common. The 5tdp is its own design
T-64 was also the backbone of Tank Division based in Eastern Europe, as oppose to the the T-72 and later the T-80 that would be sent to Tank Regiment and Tank Battalions of the Motorized Rifle Divisions and Motorized Rifle Regiments. Thus the reason why it built to be heavy hitter, and why lot fewer were built when compared to the number of other Soviet Tanks before and after it.
The Swedish Stridsvagn 103, or S-tank, was my country’s answer to the T-64. I think it would had hold it’s own against the T-64, as it was faster, had a lower profile and also had an auto loader (one that didn’t take your arm off).
autoloader eating arms is a myth
Yes true, but it totally depends on the battlefield. In hidden defensive positions the S-tank would have been extremely hard to knock out at that time, due to armour shape and the lack of a turret.
Hit and run tactics were also a thing it was good at.
The main problem was that it couldn't really shoot while moving but at that time not many tanks could shoot accurately while moving anyways.
The 64 would likely be more useful against soft targets while the S-tank was a tank killer.
Both tanks are fairly complex and not as easy to maintain as many other tanks.
@@hnorrstrom it could do offensive operations just fine, and as you said no one at the time was really firing on the move anyways. the S-tank would just work in teams like infantry and leap frog each other with some setup for firing and some moving.
The Russian carousel autoloaders were much slower than manual loaders in western tank. S tank auto loader is still the fastest known.
@@removedot "it could do offensive operations just fine" so fine that they abandoned the whole idea and never looked back... modern Swedish mbt is just German Leo2 with some swedish specific modifications so they can use Swedish name for it...
The fact that you need to rotate the whole body to aim is huge disadvantage as you showing the weak side armor to one side if you want to aim at the other side.
In case of Soviet tanks(T-64/T72B) you can use explosives to dig a trench for it and in no time you have perfect firing position with only turret visible to the enemmy and turret have very good front and side armor.
The auto loaders are the reason that you see the hugh explosions when a genade is dropped down the open hatch. And why M-1 Abrams doesn't have one.
@chuckaddison5134 The carousel auto loader was great (it gave the tank a low profile making it harder to hit) when all a tank crew had to worry about was unguided missiles like the LAWs and RPGs. But was outdated when modern guided ATMs were developed. Now a low profile does not mean much.
@@americansupervillain4595
We had ATGMs almost 40 years ago
we had seen in ukrainian war,that western "blow up pannels,etc" are far more vornuable to drones and RPGs, than auto loader...
even a tank commander froem east germany, that commanded both, soviet tanks and western tanks said he thinks auto loader is not bad for tank survivailability...
but kids on YT know better than people that work on tanks for 40 years(that guy is now working in tank museum, and his statements are on their chanell jere on YT)
@@Lipi19821 you are completely full of BS and cope. Blow out panels work and protect people, auto loaders and the way Russia stores ammo is a huge weak point. Who cares what some guy from shitty East Germany which was more than 30 years ago thinks.
@Lipi19821: if blow out panels are hit, even if the tank is lost, the crew escapes to fight again. If the carousel in a Russian tank is hit, the crew escapes from the burden of human life. And if you don't want it to be obvious that you are Russian, learn to write correct English. You have made the classic vatnik rookie errors.
I was stationed in West Berlin and I was scared of Russian tanks. Our company's tactical operation plan was simplified to, "If you can make it to the arms room, shoot that way!" After the Wall fell I got to get inside a T-64 and have a look. Cramped, shoddily-built, but still pretty scary if you had to face one in combat as a ground pounder.
It’s honestly so funny how people would shit talk the T72 and T80, yet marvel at the T64 like it’s not worse than both of those tanks in most aspects. They did the same with the T55S and T62 upgrades.
I think the reason was the T64 was thought to be a monster of the USSR in the 60 and 70s. When it came out we didnt know its weaknesses and only heard the strengths and the numbers being made. The T64 was given to Russian Guards units(so it had to be the best was the thinking of the West)..all that made the T64 terrifying. Thousand coming over the hills of the Fulda Gap was thought to be an unstoppable force.
That kind of mythology is not something that can just be forgotten. True or not.
You have to remember that even in the 80s we thought the USSR was Peer-to-peer equal to NATO and the US. We were wrong and overestimated their ability. Only finding that out after the USSR collapsed. Kind of like how we are finding out the Russian a military of today in not the 2nd best military in the world like we thought. Its not even in the top 5 anymore(barely in the top 10).
The T-64 was better in every way than the T-72 except cost...
The T 64 was impressive at the time it was created. Eventually it was surpassed though. Later Soviet tanks are considered garbage because instead of innovating the were based on the increasingly obsolete older tank. Though they all still have some use and can pose a threat if upgraded and used competently.
@@alexsmart5452 similar story with the T-34. They were thought of as a zerg rush of unkillable monsters until the fall of the iron curtain since the west only had 3 sources of information:
1. Soviet propaganda
2. Some later improved models that were built to a higher standard post war
and 3. German officers who fought on the eastern front who were trying to cover up their own failures and trying to make the Soviets seem like a far more capable enemy then they actually were since it made them look better for failing against them.
We often heard about the tanks good points like its sloped armor, adequate speed, decent gun, and its vast numbers but never heard about how the armor tended to crack even without being penetrated, about its mechanical failures, how hard it was to crew the thing, low crew survivability, and how once it got to battle the tanks average life span was measured in hours rather than weeks or months and how thanks to those mechanical failures and unreliability it couldnt be trusted to drive too far.
@@arthas640 Yeah, the tank of choice of soviet crewmen is a sherman, but some were able to effectively operate panthers and clinged to them...until they were eventually handed over to soviet officials, to get some more barely usable scrap metal.
Soviet tanks were very capable but the crews just coudn't make the best of them because of how cramped they were. They are literally sardin cans.
Soviet tank design doctrine called for very low profile, both to make them harder to hit and to allow for thicker armor within a given weight. Those very flat turrets were part of this. The fact that it made them cramped was just something the crew was supposed to live with. The Soviets didn't put much thought into how a more comfortable crew can also fight more effectively.
Figuratively sardine cans
Capable of what?
Literally?
They're capable even when cramped, lack of training, mortal and incompetent leadership don't mix
Equipment makes a difference but it's not a big one having the world's best tank only makes a difference if you're capable of keeping them from being flanked constantly
It's called infantry.
@@CMAzeriah exactly infantry is no good without armor armor is no good without infantry
The Israeli armored forces made mincemeat out of them using US army surplus.
Doesn't help Russia can't defend itself against the air. In this case top down ATGMs, Artillery combined with drones are just eating them alive.
Add in minefields? It is no wonder each armies tanks are getting alive. (Ukraine was getting wrecked by attack helicopters during the offensive).
So to be fair to Russia? There isn't a tank in the world that can survive these things. Yet since this war turned into one of trench warfare the tanks themselves are suffering.
I mean even during WWII Nazi tanks would get decimated anytime the sky cleared up by allied fighters. IIRC there was very unfavorable weather which grounded aircraft during Battle of the Buldge. Once the skys cleared up they started decimating tank formations along with Artillery.
Add in the fact infantry are deadlier than ever, with ATGMs allowing them to reach out over a KM, and destroy them via top attack?
Well let us just say armor needs to catch up! Where is that boron nanotube armor haha.
@@dianapennepacker6854reads like hohol cope
I have been watching these videos from Ukraine. I trained on the M-48 and the M-60, as well as the M=551? Sheridan, used in Vietnam. When you see a tank hit, with the crew inside, before the flames of the hit are visible from outside, that crew was a pink mist.
For anyone wondering why High explosive shells may had been used in the 6.5 mile engagement, that's because they do not loose penetration power over distance, like apfsds do, so it worked kinda like artillery, and if the shell hit the roof, cracked a hatch, machine gun port or turret ring, vision port, it would be an end to the tank, as even sturdy armpur can get worn out and crack... especially on such old vehicles
Armor
I wonder how many of these tanks in these clips are now piles of chard scrap
Considering Russian losses, most of them probably
The only thing mind blowing about war thunder is how unlike reality it is, it's about an accurate depiction of tanks as the original Mario is to human movements
As with all the other supposed simulations, armchair geeks think they know more after playing them than actual experts, be it tanks, other military and alsoflight simulators.
still fun and amazing
The T-64 has the same fatal design flaw that the T-72/80/84/90 have; that upright ammunition storage carousel, that it’s autoloader requires, that is open to the crew compartment in the turret. One round penetrating the tank sets off the stored ammunition, with nothing separating the detonation, and resulting fire from the crew. Unlike the M-1 Abrams, which has sliding doors to separate the crew from the stored ammo, and blowoff panels on top of the storage compartment, to vent the energy from an ammo detonation skyward, out of the tank, and away from the crew in the turret. I’m pretty certain that other modern tanks, such as the Leopard 2, Challenger, etc., have similar attributes.
It was also fixed in some very obscure (but modern!) modification of T-55, where autoloader was added in the back of turret (like on lercerc).
the carrousel is not the culprit, but the extra ammunitions stored outside of this
Cobasna is the site of a Russian, and formerly Soviet, ammunition depot known as the Cobasna ammunition depot. It has been referred to as the largest in Eastern Europe. Two miles from the Ukrainian border in Moldova? Weapons? Huge pile of weapons? Yeah two miles away. . .
Was the largest, now it's probably empty. I met a moldavian once who said he was smuggling ak's to Europe by parts when he was a kid.
@@WEMBLEYNE Hardly. There is enough weapons for many more generations of smugglers.
Colbasna
Just to clarify the Challenger 2 still holds the longest tank kill because this was direct fire and it was one shot.. That is when the gunner can see the target. The Ukrainian T64 wich destoyed a Russian T72 wich took a lot of HE shells was indirect fire which was guided by a drone operator. There is a differece like between a 200 meter race compared to a long distance one.
That the shell can travel over 6 miles is mind-boggling enough, rendering normal artillery far less significant for many purposes. Not to take away from the Challenger2, with today's integrated battle systems I'm not sure which record would stand, as air-spotting of artillery and naval gun strikes has been happening for over 100 years now; nobody says that this doesn't count for their record shots. Still, for that Challenger2 to make the hit with one shot is very remarkable and commendable even if you place the T64 ahead in the game.
Wasnt it a chally 1?
Russia probably now has at least one kill of longer range from a tank as they have been using older tanks in indirect fire role. Only there is no way to confirm:)
That chally kill on the T-55 was literally the equivalent of hunting a rabbit with a 50 cal lol .
@JohnFrumFromAmerica Even if it happened the info would be suppressed and debated as propaganda so we'd never really know
You're pronouncing CH and KH the wrong way around. Ch is a sibilant, because it's an anglicized transliteration. Kh is a "hard h".
Nerd
The Soviets could always put out simple to use tanks with the T series and for awhile up until the M1 Abrams was starting to be cranked out in the 1980's, those T series tanks were always feared by NATO countries because you would be seeing hundreds of them crossing over a hill which was the nightmare scenario. The Yom Kippur war was where the T series really got the first test of who had better tanks the western Patton series and Centurion tanks or the Arab T series tanks. Well in the end, it was the Patton series and Centurion tanks that took the day. Then Desert Storm showed that western tanks like the M1 were vastly superior with the thermal optics, computer controlled stabilization, and superior army, and excellent crew training along with combined arms showed that the T series just were no match for western tanks like the M1A1 Abrams tank and Challenger 1 tanks. Those T series tanks are good for regional armed conflicts, but in the end, a western tanks in a combined arms initiative is almost impossible to overcome.
You can't say the wars in Israel is proof that the T series is inferiour with Israelis having full air superiority and the arabs not knowing how to fight.
T55s were better tanks than m47s and centurions with the gun and armor.
In the same way as you distinguish between the M60 Patton and the M1 Abrams (you don't just say "M-series"), you should distinguish between individual T-series tanks. Addressing them all as "T-series" makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Disregarding the fact, that the west didn't have anything even close to the T-64 between it entering production and M1 Abrams entering production (approximately 17 years), this is important particularly in Desert Storm where there was a 2-decade wide technological gap between the two battling sides. Iraq bought the T-72M tanks from Warsaw Pact countries and even though they were produced through the 80's, they were almost identical to the T-72 Ural developed in the early 70's (even back then, technologically much more simpler to the T-64B). These had no night vision, no thermals, no composite armor reactive armor and Iraq even bought 20 year old steel rod APFSDS rounds that had very poor penetration capabilities by the 90's standards. All the Coalition forces had to do to avoid losses was to attack at night, which is what they did most of the time, but even during daytime, the flat desert environment amplifies the technological gap, making it more of a shooting practice for the side with a technological advantage.
The European theater in the 80's and 90's, things would've played out much differently. As it can be witnessed in Ukraine, the quality of individual tanks matters less when engaged in a brutal war of attrition with vast minefields, artillery and an infinite amount of places to hide them, but also NATO would have had to face much more modern Soviet tanks like the T-80U or the T-72B. Speaking of which, when the US got their hands on one of the latter in Eastern Germany after the Berlin wall fell, they tested its frontal armor against the best 120mm APFSDS rounds they had at the time. These did not penetrate and they had to develop a new one.
I probably surprise you, but tanks made mainly not to fights with other tanks. And second surprise that most T-72Monkey in desert storm wasn't destroyed by tanks, but helicopters. Modern situation reveals that tank role narrows even more. Any tank is a good target by now.
A western combined arms formation is hard to overcome if you're going against inferior and small countries.
@@subjectc7505 Then explain why the Iraqis got slaughter by combined arms of the West. The Iraqis had one of the largest and most modern armies in the world at the time, and yet it crumbled.
hint..better training, better command, better logistics.
Its why nations like Israel win even when outnumbered and outgunned. Its why Ukraine has done so well against Russia. It used old Soviet Equipment and Doctrine at first but with a mishmash of western stuff(mostly ATGM) to blunt the assault from the Russians in early 2022..and as more (although still a small percentage)western stuff, western tactics, western training they have ground the Russian down to a force only capable of local limited offensive action.
The truth of the matter is that any military that happens to go up against Western militaries will ALL be inferior(China and Russia included).
8:00
There were less Ukrainian citizens supporting the Russian agents than the west believes. The Insurgency in Donetsk is primarily a Russian Operation using a relatively small amount of native collaborators to give the appearance of an internal struggle.
Donetsk is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian speakers. Has been for hundreds of years.
@@jackalopewright5343 : so what.
@@garywheeler7039 So ask them if they prefer being part of Russia. Or do you hate democracy?
@@jackalopewright5343 : when has Russia held territory ever had real democracy! The territory was illegally invaded by Russia.
@@garywheeler7039 The US supported coup in 2014 was illegal. Ukraine banned the speaking of Russian even though people have used it there longer than the US has been a nation. Then they banned opposition parties. Then Ukraine became the most corrupt country in Europe and a major center in the trade of human organs. Then for eight years they shelled the ethnically Russian areas. And constitutionally, Zelensky’s term expired on May 20. But Russia is not democratic. Got it.
"it became evident that T-64, despite its innovative design wouldn't become Soviet Army go to tank" So they built five thousand of them
Yes, only 5000 of them.
For example T-72s were produced like x5 more.
@@kot0472 I just said random number, but now you made me check, I can't find exact number, but I found information that they made between 6 000 and 13 100 of them.
@@DembilajaAnd, I believe, kept them all within Russia, and the former Soviet Republics, none for export, like the T-72/80/90.
2:08 - "In the late 1950s, the Soviet Union introduced...the T-64..." Wrong! The T-64 was not fielded until very late 1966. Who edits these scripts?
The T-64 was hot garbage, which is why they were replaced in production by the T-72, never never offered for export, never shown-off in any Soviet military parades, and why further development of the existing tanks ended abruptly in 1977 when the T-64's manufacturer began building the T-80. It's no accident that even while Russia has kept T-55s and T-62s in storage into the present day, they scrapped every single T-64 they had left in 2014.
The definitive features of the T-64 (and why they make it an irreparable dead-end bridge) are;
- A unique main gun, the 125mm 2A26. The USSR dropped that weapon like a hot coal in the early 1970s when T-64 production was abandoned (only 6 years after it started, and after a pitiful 6,000 were completed), and starting with the T-72, every subsequent Soviet and Russian main battle tank since has carried the 125mm 2A46 instead.
- A height so low that severe height restrictions were imposed on drivers.
- An autoloader and replenisher design never repeated on any subsequent Soviet or Russian tank, because of how easily and often they broke down.
- An autoloader and turret crew stations so close together, that the rammer had a tendency to rip the arms off the commander and/or gunner when loading a new round.
- A 5-cylinder diesel engine so awful, that it was never repeated in any other tank since, except in Ukrainian T-74 and T-80 rebuilds (due to KBM inheriting the entire assembly line for that engine, and not having the capacity to develop suitable V12s as replacements).
- That 5-celynder engine was also a "tri-fuel" engine (it could run on diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel), a mistake repeated only in the M1 Abrams, T-80, and Chieftain. Like the Chieftain, the T-64's engine ran excessively smoky, leaked, and easily caught fire.
- Contradicting the supposed urgency of the "tri-fuel" requirement, and the fact that most of the fuel stockpiled by the Soviet Army was diesel oil, the APU (electrical generator) in the T-64 runs exclusively on gasoline. In addition to being a logistical bottleneck, a gasoline engine in a modern tank is a serious fire hazard.
- The T-64's tracks were re-designed to reduce the high tendency for track-throwing that the previous T-62 had, but it backfired; the T-64 has a _greater_ tendency to throw it's tracks than all previous or subsequent Russian tanks.
- The unusually roadwheels of the T-64 have it high ground pressure for it's weight, and a greater propensity to set-off anti-tank mines.
The reliability, availability, maintainability, durability, and operability of the T-64 was such a complete trainwreck, that for the first entire decade of their operational service, they were never deployed more than a few-hundred miles away from the factories that built them, because of how frequently they suffered breakdowns so serious that only the factories could repair them. Teams of civilian mechanics became "semi-permanent residents" of T-64 formations because of how often they broke-down. It's not an accident that the T-72 was hurriedly developed and put into production and service shortly after the T-64; it was developed to _replace_ the T-64, and it did.
This is also why the T-64 didn't first deploy to Eastern Europe until 1977, 10 years after they entered service --- NATO instantly assumed they were looking at the successor to the T-72 (which was first deployed to Eastern Europe in 1971, the year they entered service), and ever since then were never able to kick the incorrect assumption that the T-64 was a more advanced tank. NATO couldn't comprehend the simple fact that the T-64 had arrived late because it was a dud.
This unsurprisingly resulted in a war-losing tank that's been slaughtered in every battle it ever fought in, even when T-62s and T-72s operating alongside them prevailed. Their first combat action was in Moldova in 1982, in which 18 a column of T-64BVs were wiped-out by 100mm anti-tank guns (a weapon that, on paper, had been obsolete for almost 30 years). So many T-64s broke-down as the Russian Army retreated from Moldova, that they abandoned another 20 of them.
The Ukrainian Army has also suffered terribly for their decision to continue operating T-64s.Of the 2,350 Ukraine inherited from the USSR in 1991, they only had 700 T-64s in service and 650 in storage by 2014, and they lost lost 300 of them in 2014 alone. Ukraine lost another 240 T-64s in 2022. The Russians and pro-Russian separatists captured over 100 other T-62s in 2022, and they were handed over to the separatists... who lost half of them before the year was over.
Eh, the 100mm AT gun shenanigans being "obsolete" reminds me of war thunder shenanigans: that modern armoured car the enemy team has with laser range finder and 400m+ pen is all very nice, but all the panzer 2 hears is "armoured car" and starts salivating with it's 20mm autocannon.
I don't think the T 64/72/80/90 design is at all a bad design but it is a dangerously outdated one at that. But despite the fact that in a majority of cases Ukraine and Russia are using the same vehicles, the confirmed loses on each side shows that Ukraine has the superior doctrine and tactics. For all of Russia's advantages in firepower, manpower, and technology ETC Russia still hasn't achieved victory after almost 2 years of war. Ukraine has not only stopped Russian offensives but has rolled back the majority of their gains and still holds the initiative.
Rolled back the majority oftheir gains ?.. Really ? Have you looked at the map of Ukrain recently ?
@fawkesthegreatbnovember6390 yep. The Russians retreated from kyiv, chernihiv, sumy, kharkiv, and kherson. Ukraine has taken back over 50% of the territory lost at the beginning of the invasion.
@@fawkesthegreatbnovember6390 And this process is still going on with southern offensive, and avdyivka counter-offensive operations.
@@MrAwsomenoobRussia moved back and it was wen zelensky was going to peace talk with putin, rissia moved back, but then english prime minister told zelsnsky no peace taljs and now the war continues.
many ukrainian tankers (now with the most diverse tank experience in the world) refer to T-64 as far superior than T-72, but worse than T-80 (both gas and diesel versions)
Yeah.....that autoloader line about mangled arms is bullshit. Next you'll tell us napoleon was short
Napoleon wasn't short. It was British propaganda. He was 5'7" at a time when the height most Frenchmen were between 5'2 and 5'8".
As an aside it is said that the Napoleonic caused the average height of Frenchmen to fall by an inch or so due to the number of deaths during the war. The Grand Armie had minimum height requirements for its soldiers so as this cohort died in battle the average height of the total male population fell.
@@daniellarge9784 I know, I followed one propaganda lie with another.
God this entire comment section needs to watch a laserpig video or somthin
Russia invaded in 2014. What happened in Feb 2022 was simply an escalation.
Flase, they invaded, annexed crimea, got repelled, and invaded again, it is no escalation.
So if Russia uses T-64 oh look they are running out of tanks but if the same Ukraine does it's engineering marble. 😆
:) marvel
Ukraine is not a superpower, Russia is. What's russian excuse?
@@olegkupran5284oh so now you *are* saying that Russia *is* a superpower? Well then, excuse is that Ukraine recieved (in $ equivalent) more than 4fold of what Russia had spent on this war.
@@iansysoev9462 Now I am saying that Russia is a superpower? You talk like I denied it. Ukraine did received weapons In $ equivalent more than Russia spent, but it's not tanks. Despite receiving tanks from foreign countries, Ukraine's number of T72 tanks is not even a half of their total numbers. Ukraine's number of modern foreign designed MBTs does not even exceed 200. They have 300 Leopard 1 tanks, that were designed in a freaking 50-60s
@@olegkupran5284 they have enough artillery, cruise missiles, drones and AT weaponry tho
Seeing this thumbnail, all I can think about is the Oddball quote from Kelly's Heroes, "We got our own ammunition, it’s filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes… pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people!"
Don't get war thunder, you will hate your life. You've been warned
A $300 drone armed with a thermite charge can burn the heart out of any tank.
In the end, all warfare is about economics.
Tanks are expensive and vulnerable and drones are cheap and effective.
While I don't think the tank era is over, the new modalities of modern warfare are going to drive some insane up-arming techniques across peers and the new reality that you cannot secure the skies truly against small disposable drones is going to produce some very advance R&D solutions from major powers. Modern warfare is radically changing before our very eyes.
No. Just no.
You cannot successfully invade and occupy a country with drones, though. You need boots, and the boots need tanks. There are no panaceas in war.
Until EWS rolls in. Ukraine was able to use drones only after destroying russian electronic warfare systems. Before that, all attempts to use cheap drones WILL fail.
Sadly the Kharkiv tank plant has been demolished by Russian bombardments and shellings...
It will be intriguing to disimulate the 'real' information of experiance/combat outcomes of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict vs the propaganda narratives.
I find it interesting that the West continues it's unabated narrative of criticism of Soviet/Russian armour, even though until this conflict, conviently and commercially overlooking the fact and reality of the 'monkey' models that the West has faced and fought.
I think it should also be appropriated that if I remember correctly, the T-64B was the first Soviet MBT to introduce a gun-launched missile - the 9K112 Kobra ATGM in 1976 (a far superior weapon than the troubled and unreliable American MGM-51 Shillelagh).
Once again, it will be interesting to see how such gun-launched missiles performed in this conflict....
While the idea of a gun-launched missile is cool, what makes it worth using over a standard HEAT or, in a high-pressure weapon like the main gun of a tank, a SABOT? Unguided munitions are totally immune to soft-kill APS, and kinetic rounds are largely resistant towards hard-kill systems, unlike chemical rounds (and especially missiles). Plus, as far as I'm aware, that tank has to remain stationary to use the missile, leaving it exposed and vulnerable to return fire
Thanks for your reply@@williamnixon3994
I am not questioning the versatility of high-pressure gun derived rounds.
My notion of trying to ascertain the usage of gun-launched missiles is precisely in response to your apprehension - i.e. notional perception vs combat reality.
Then there's the reality that the concept notion of the sixties - Anti-Char Rapide Autopropulsé (ACRA), MGM-51 Shillelagh technology vs modern digital technology-based systems.....
From what I understand, the principle advantage of a gun-launched missiles is principly range. Then there is the evolution of the attack helicopter armed with both comprehensive sensors and ATM'S, for which some of these newer gun-launched missiles offer a defence against......
Regards
@@RobertWilliams-us4kw Thank you for your reply!
However, I must heavily disagree with the notion that a gun-launched ATGM would offer any sort of defense against helicopters, especially ones armed with fire-and-forget Mavericks (or pick your flavor of 'shoot and forget about it' type of missile, there's a few) which (publicly) have over quadruple the range of the (public numbers for) the Refleks ATGM. The crew would first have to know the helicopter is there, which they almost certainly aren't going to know about until the helicopter has already made itself known, and then get their shot off before the helicopter does, *and then* hold still enough that their missile strikes the target (if it hasn't ducked back into cover because it can see you shot a missile at it) without popping smoke to disrupt the guidance of the incoming missile. The crew stands a marginally better chance against a Hellfire or equivalent, but the helicopter has something the tank doesn't: Computerized targeting systems. The helicopter can point its sensors at a spot on the ground, and designate that spot as a target, the computers will do everything else in keeping the laser on target whilst it ducks, dodges, and weaves to throw off the tankers' aim.
In short, the tank has two options when facing a helicopter: Run and hide, or pray AAA is on the ball, cuz having it perform it's own anti-air duties is not going to end well for it. My dim outlook on gun-launched ATGMs also includes uses against drones, as a 20-30mm autocannon would be a far more efficient use of space than having to stock a third or fourth type of main gun ammunition -specifically for the chance that the tank encounters a drone-, which would cut deeply into the reserves for ammunition that the tank is much more likely to use, such as HEAT, HE, and SABOT, in the order of their importance imo
CZcams Ads suck for interrupting your show.
"Oh no - the auto loader's only gone and mangled my entire arm, well, that's certainly inconvenient!"
Tha a myth, though.
Just re-nickname me Lefty!🤣💙💛🇺🇦🔱🌻
Myth
So regarding the War Thunder sponsorship, I’ll say from experience that the damage model really does set the game apart from others. It doesn’t just matter whether you hit the target, it matters where you hit the target. A few inches can mean the difference between causing minor damage and blasting the driver, gunner, and commander all in the face. And as you would imagine, an incapacitated driver can’t drive, an incapacitated gunner can’t shoot, etc.
Highly recommend this game.
*Spot on mate! I just fell in love with that game, first played in 2014. I was amazed from the stunning graphics & the game play 'reality' feeling.*
I have played thousands of hours (~6000+) of warthunder since release and I cannot recommend it at all for the following reasons:
1. My team will essentially default to losing unless I actively force a win, I can't have fun or try new things as the second I stop playing objectives the team just straight up loses.
2. The games pay model has gotten worse and worse as it has aged, they are now offering even more top-tier vehicles for extortionate prices that allow inexperienced players to throw higher tier matches consistently.
3. They are yet to develop any new or improved game modes or substantial maps, most of the "new" maps are badly thought out or just lacking in anything notable.
4. "Revenge Bombing" is still a viable tactic. You kill a guy in ground forces and within 10 seconds he is diving down onto you with bombs loaded and you are completely powerless. They need to force players to take off from airfields in ground RB to combat this.
It could be an amazing game (like it once was), but with every update and every new faction the game gets worse and worse. "Balance" is a joke, each new premium introduces a new layer of "REALLY?" to the game.
You will like warthunder for a while, then little things will start to annoy you. The little things add up and then they add something extra cancerous to really cement in your new found feeling.
there is a similar damage model in World of Tanks
@@BlaBla-pf8mfWorld of tanks is more of a acarde game.
Complete with turret relocation device, relocated to the stratosphere!
2:43 Lazerpig intensifies!
The Russian army doesn't call their tank crews tankers they call them cosmonauts
Flying Wallendas!
В российской армии никогда танкистов не называли космонавтами. Обратись к психиатру.
No tanker ever lost an arm due to an autoloader. A myth
It said the engine. Which makes even less sense
In my opinion also known as a FACT , T-80 , when and if the logistics kite tail is available , as well as a crew actually trained on T-80 , simply T-80 became and is the BEST overall MBT to roll off the Russian assembly line . Cue troll flame war of words NOW.
Isn't about 85% of this footage of T-72s?
Could be anything. This channel seems to be long ads about War Thunder. "See what it's like to get your arm mangled in a War Thunder T-64 !
No, actually it isn’t.
most of the footage were t-64s, you can tell the difference between a t-64 and t-72 by the roadwheels (t-64 has smaller diameter) and the exhaust position (t-72 exhaust is sideway while t-64 at the rear), but frontaly almost impossible to tell the difference, maybe by tracks but those are very small detail
HA! That "5-TDF" engine is a copy of a French dirigible's engine after it was shot down while doing a spy flight, and the Russians built a Tank around it. Russia copies their adversary's military equipment all the time. In this aspect, something made for a "Clean Air" environment, got shoved into dirt throwing tank... Go figure, huh? That was done as well with the M-48 and 60 series tank on our end. The tank commander's .50 Cal was an aircraft's version, and it jammed with Tank-Dirt every time he fired it. The T.C. had to keep a gallon of "Break-Free" in the tank at all times, (and he used a lot of it.) `That always ran straight down his Gunner's back every damn time! Bam! Jam. Bam-Bam! Jam. Bang! Jam... That's all.
Fun-Fact Note: Most T-64's engines broke down within 15 miles of their bases when Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and had to be towed there and set up in intersections to be used as a pillbox emplacement.
Where the fuck have you read that?
😂😂😂
That's the first time I hear T-64's engine was copied by a French spy balloon 😂😂😂
@@albertoamoruso7711 I got that little bit of info while I was in High School and later on in the Army's Tank Training Program.
@@Absalon68 And while you were servicing/studying there where did you read it was developed from a French spy balloon?
I wasn't able to find this info anywhere on internet, while most accounts report 5TDF was developed in Ukraine around 1954 with no Western input whatsoever.
A rober got robe .
@@Absalon68 You were lied to. The layout was based on German Jumo bomber engine.
War thunder commercial as I'm playing war thunder love it haha 🤣🤙
Sadly, the Kharkiv tank factory has been closed and subsequently shelled and bombed by Russian terrorists.
Both my mother in law and father in law worked there at one time.
It is doubtful it will ever reopen. Like a lot of factories in Kharkiv, it will most likely be relocated to western Ukraine.
Even after the victory, when Ukraine's borders are restored, Kharkiv is simply too close to the border with Russia to be a viable location for critical factories and institutions such as Ukraine's Air Force Academy, also located in Kharkiv.
Kharkiv was the 2nd largest Ukrainian city, but I think that will change after the victory. Many factories are leaving. The people will have to follow in order to have jobs.
True. Even if russia surrendered right now, the damage is already done.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 The damage could be repaired but I don't think businesses will be willing to re-establish factories within artillery range of the Russian border. Unless the negotiations include a sizable demilitarized zone, internationally enforced, Kharkiv's industrial base will be decimated permanently.
The tank factory will likely be replaced by, or incorporated into, Rheinmetall's proposed factory in western Ukraine.
Kharkiv is nearly 400 years old. And it was the Ukrainian Socialist Republic's first capital, from 1919 until 1934. I don't think it will "go away", but it will be permanently changed and a lot of its population will leave.
Such a loss. But I can understand, especially since many of the industrial factories are foreign owned. They simply won't accept that risk.
It was really a great city and I recommend it to anyone to visit when the time comes that you can do so safely. The Ukrainian history museum is worth the trip alone.
There’s actually websites out there right now that post Russian tank turret popping height contests for how high the turrets go when they ultimately blow up.
The “Jack-In-The-Box” effect, or, as our military preferred to diplomatically refer to it during Desert Storm: “Catastrophic Turret Failure.” Kinda one of those “Collateral Damage” type of sanitized terms.
What a load of BS.
T-64 is pretty outdated, even the rare BM and B1M got chewed up pretty bad without causing much damage.
T64 tanks are about as capable as T72 tanks that are the bulk of the Russian tank fleet.
@@freitb1 No they're not, they're less reliable and less upgradeable
@@albertoamoruso7711 they have the same gun, same shells, similar protection levels, and similar capabilities when equally modernized. the only real clear advantages a t72 may have is speed.
@@freitb1 Not really, Ukrainian guns didn't evolved beyond 2A46M while modern T-72s are fitted with 2A46M5 which can fire more powerful missiles. Russian tanks also received more modern ERA boosting their protection, better FCS and T-72 suspensions allow more equipment to be fitted on them compared to T-64s.
T-64 was developed and produced ONLY in ukrainian Kharkiv, so there is no way russians could keep it production. Aand actually, Morozov plant lost to Uralvagonzavod mostly due to Tagil factory intrigues
I never tire of hearing stories about how 'old, outdated' military men and equipment turn out to be worthy of one more big fight.
t-64m still has more HE firepower that any western tanks.
But video didn't show why suddenly Russia start to regret it. She didn't, it is great tank.
they regret they can't make it, because it was made by Ukrainians.
How so calibers are similar just as the shells they use.
@@viceralman8450Ruzzian troll. Still they lurk among us.
@@Luked0g440 The other guy more like a russian clown to be honest.
I saw a video of the Russian Terminator tank. It got terminated by a drone. Another tank came to tow the Terminator tank and that tank got terminated too.
Yeah. We don’t hear very much about the Russian Terminator armored vehicles anymore, now do we? I remember when they were first being introduced by Ruzzia, they were supposed to usher in the death knell of Ukrainian forces, and then…….we heard a whole lot of nothing about them. My guess is that Ukraine started picking them off, one by one, and Ruzzia was too embarrassed to admit it. We don’t hear much about the TOS-1A either.
As we are entering the drone age, tanks are become obsolete.
@@Luked0g440 There is barely a dozen or two of them all across russia. Dont really have anything to talk bout to begin with. And TOS...well, EXTREMELY close range artillery is not as useful against an enemy with aireal recon and long-range precise artillery, as it was against some afgan rebels.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Does Ukraine have precision artillery and aerial reconnaissance? Where? Almost all of its artillery was knocked out by Lancet drones or Russian counter-battery work. For one shot from Ukraine, 20 come in response. Ukraine cannot effectively operate artillery far from the battle line, especially with a total shortage of shells. Russia produces more shells than all of NATO combined. The West only plans to start producing some artillery shells in 2025-27. Russia has 10 times more drones than Ukraine. And besides, electronic warfare forces. Making Ukrainian air reconnaissance ineffective near the battle line. Ukraine relies only on satellite intelligence from NATO.
terminator is a tank support AFV and actually performs really well in the Ukrainian battlefield. According an article in FORBES about 1 year ago terminator is the next stage of Tank evolultion. As for the casualties what did u expect? its a f@ckin war
@2:06 to skip the baked in commercial. Now that CZcams is blocking privacy tools and forcing ads on us that pay content creators I feel no need to be tolerant of these baked in ads.
A video you don't see getting made often is the difference in individual tank crew training. How long a tanker is trained before certified to join the regular force. What are they trained on? What equipment do they use for training? Number of on hand certified regular tank crews a nation has. I'm currently a 19K of 16 years on the US side. I always wanted to see a video comparing our level of training from OSUT to a NTC deployment ready certifying event. Then what that would look like comparatively. Having a great piece of equipment is great. However, being a professional, an expert, and practicing in real times how you operate with all your supporting elements is an expensive and irreplaceable thing. While "combat experience" is incomparable it is costly learned and to often poor practices are learned.
When russia almost went for quality over quantity
almost
thats called T80
The Soviet Union went for both because they could afford it.
Even the T-72B was a massive leap ahead what the West had.
And then they ended with the T-80U which was the best tank of the Cold War (especially the T-80UK which was equipped with a CITV just like the Leopard 2, while having superior gun, armor and mobility).
That would be obj187 sadly they still go for the cheap one.. Aka t90a.
@@Rek1emMScar Object 187 isn't better than T-90A. It's arguably comparable or worse than the T-90 which the 187 competed against (and lost to) in 1991-1992.
Like most Soviet tanks, the turret would fly spectacularly into the air when struck by enemy fire.
More complicated machinery to be maintained by fewer men. What could go wrong?
Yeah and you get a hand crank to turn the turrets not run by electric motor
Be great if the Pakistani's would sell back to Ukraine the 100 T-84 Oplot's sold in 2017. They should have kept them.
Why would they?
6.5 miles?
The ghost of T64
there isn't a tank made that any atgm isn't capable of destroying or disabling. and artillery laughs in their general direction
the one thing that is involved in everything more or less in the ukraine war. Cheap chinese drones...
the t64 its a beast
Was
When it was developed, it was for sure.
Today it's sub-standard, mainly because its engine is too difficult and expensive to maintain, and its suspensions are too weak to cope with much needed protection increases
T64? T62 i know about ... after that it was the T72 T80 and the more modern ones. When i got in (1980) the US had M60 series
T64 was a competitor but it was more complex and expensive so not continued. T72 was then built from T62
T-80 is literally a T-64 with a gas turbine.
Edit: well not literally but that was the design goal of T-80, give the T-64 a gas turbine engine
first iterations of abrams were in development during the 1970's
the T-64 may be outdated now but without it there would be no T-72 or T-80
It's all in maintaining the tank.
Good video ! Nice call out to its relationship to Ukraine T84
Faster rate of fie compared to the T72.
Nope.
Nope
I’ve prolapsed again
This thing about the auto loader taking of peoples arms, are utterly bullshit.
I would think the first thing they would replace would be that 125mm smoothbore cannon. In Desert Storm an Iraqi T72 with that same 125mm smoothbore got 3 direct hits on an M1 Abrams using kinetic energy penetrating rounds and didn't get through. That was over 30 years ago. To still use that same gun when most tanks today have reactive and Chobham armor equal to what the Abrams had in Desert Storm sounds a bit foolish to me. I'm still hoping Sgt Bilko gets that hover tank fixed up that he promised Zalinski last year.
Iraq had earliest model of soviet APFSDS - 3BM9. Dated 1962 and removed from service in USSR in 1973. At the end of USSR already was APFSDS like 3BM48 "Svinets" made to counter M1A2. That was over 30 years ago. For today - this is time of tank replacement, not only cannon. APFSDS for 2A82-1M at T-14 makes any tank armor obsolete.
@@alexanderkharin7036 how can a tank that is only good for parades, and can't even do that anymore make any tank tank armor obsolete? T-14 is a joke. A joke Russia can't even build any of. Don't know how you didn't get the memo on that.
You are talking about export version of T-72 and that is T72A with weaker armor, for price of a single T-64 you could build 2.5xT-72A(known as T-72M on international market). Soviets at that time earned plenty of money selling this tanks to half of the world.
125mm cannons have the same diameter but different ammo and most important in this case different operating pressure -> newer 125mm can use stronger charge not only better design of the projectile.
And your whole point have no sense if you actualy take into consideration that M1 used in Desert Storm was using 105mm cannon that for obvious reasons have no chance to be stronger than 125mm
And in case of Iraq they used all the good projectiles on Iran -> US literally used them to start 10years old war with Iran, then Sadam got nothing out of it and wanted to take Kuwait as consolation prize.
Kuwait got no army to ressist that invasion so Iraq lackof modern ammo was not a problem, literally projectiles that you are talking here about were used in other warsaw pact countries as training rounds not as the proper ammo to fight on a real war.
You also babling about smothbore without having any idea what it is all about -> British were using rifled cannon because it was good for HESH, for APDS that is not an advantage this type of cannon is in fact huge disadvantage->you wasting plenty of energy because of that rifling...
@@removedot you tend to hear the same things regarding soviet tanks like the T-72: The Iraqis only had had inferior export version and the ones in the USSR were 10x as good (according to Soviet propaganda), the T-14 is better and can kill 20 Abrams with a single shot, the Soviet trained Iraqis using Soviet equipment and Soviet weaponry didnt use the right Soviet tactics...
@@arthas640 Well, that happens when you PAY for your equipment and not get military assistance (as happened another time with AA). Everything you see outside of soviet union is one or more generations behind.
The T-64 was soon mostly replaced by the legendary T-72. Yet another Kalashnikov of tanks. And the T-72 was really heavily inspired by it. So what is the regret?
Nothing
Darkdocs has become a gigantic anti-russia channel that creates false video's with misinformation and clickbait titles.
the "regret" here would be that the T-64 is now being used against Russia, even though this is a massive advantage to Russia because of 2 reasons:
1. It's inferior to most of Russia's vehicles
2. Russia knows how to outplay the T-64, they know its weaknesses and how to fight it.. unlike the Challenger 2, Abrams or Leopard 2.
The autoloader. The T64 pioneered the carousel style autoloader for the (then) USSR. It continues to be used right up to the T90, Russia's latest (in service) MBT. The auto loader uses a flat carousel in the floor of the tank. Up until the T90 is was completely unarmored. They added some armor to the T90 floor, but not really enough.
Any round that penetrates the turret, especially from the top, sets off the ammo stored in the carousel.
That explosion typically launches the turret straight up resulting in the ever popular CZcams sport of judging the Turret Toss.
Extra points are awarded for height, number of complete rotations, shape of the mushroom cloud and the uniqueness of the landing.
Turrets that drive their barrel into the ground and end up as a Lollypop are especially favored.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
T-72 is legendary? How so?
They have been burning since Iraq.
@@johntrottier1162 Actually the T-64 has a different type of carousel autoloader, storing the 2-pieces rounds at a 90° angle.
T-72 was created because that system was unreliable, too expensive and too vulnerable in case of penetration of the hull. Also the Ukrainians weren't able to supply enough T-64s to the Red Army.
This is when the Russian UVZ was tasked with the modification of existing T-62s with T-64's 125 mm guns. UVZ created the AZ autoloader as side project, and the Soviet authorities were so impressed they ordered a new tank to be made with that new carousel.
That's how the T-72 was born.
Not sure. This channel is kinda low quality/high output content to show advertisements over.
The T-64 driver can only be about 5' 4" in order to get into the driver's seat!
Russian tanks always were designed to have a low profile.
Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin was leading engineer in the team for T-34, Kucharenko and Morozov work with him.
Russian tanks use an innovative self-loading system. Americans use a 19 year old. Some things can’t be improved upon.
Wait wait wait hold up…. You think ukraine repelled russia when russia is now holding and defending the area they set out to take over in the first place? That’s crazy
they set out to hold less than half of the area they took at first, and not even all of the regions they claimed were theirs? incredibly massive levels of cope
I take it you haven’t looked at a conflict map nor do you have any idea how war works but spout off boss
"overshadowed by it's hidden shortcomings"
Those are certainly all words.
Is that red stuff intestines? Cool...
T-64 are pop tops because of those auto loaders. Ever seen one get a devastating hit? Those turrets go flying high.
So you haven't seen the footage of the destroyed Challenger 2 with its turret off place and the commander cupola blow off from inside?
And Challenger 2 even suppose to have protection against internal fragments.
@@LyubomirIko WTF are you taking about
@@American11B Challenger 2 "pop tops" just like T-64 despite having no auto-loader and allegedly having protection against internal fragments. You want me to repeat for 3 time maybe?
@@LyubomirIko Yea, I like to come on the internet to argue with complete strangers too. By asserting that my opinions are far more superior than yours. Would you like to get some tea later and maybe debate about how a hotdog is a sandwich?
@@American11B I am stating just facts - Challenger 2 "pop tops" just like T-64 and there is footage of this. You can "argue" whole day long how this is not true and you still won't have argument. You don't understand the concept of arguing my friend. If reality bothers you, now this is another question.
Great video
Rhanks, Dark Docs.
poor tonks they all need a new home
Saying the auto loaders in Soviet/Russian tanks have severely injured soldiers is a massive exaggeration. No tank historian has managed to find any record of this happening except for one time a BMP crew member was injured by the auto loader.
And BMP autoloader was only time where it was removed from soviet tank (IFV in this case). EVERYONE operating T-64/72/80/90 keep the autoloader, even countries that have NATO equipment.
Until it was with Russia it was bad, now it being used against Russia it's mind-blowing. Hypocrisy at its highest.
Fro ruski
Huh?
He said it was fantastic, but had problems.
Kinda how Ukraine was considered a barely European undeveloped corrupted shit hole inhabited by racist right-wingers untill the war started.
Most russia supporters have filthy anime pfps, coincidence?
No it still sucks.
I remember well the re-unification of Germany. We were fascinated by the simple yet amazingly rugged Russian war machines of East Germany. I am not surprised at all the darn things are still operating. Well done to a bygone people from a bygone age.
45 mph. Umm, Russia used Metric.
before 2014 the western countries said the soviet tech was shitty (specially tanks), now with the NECESSITY by the war, they have these type of videos to say is a "marvelous weapon" and with "new western thermal optics" almost a miracle one. 100% objectivity. hahahahahaha
This channel is sounding more like a propaganda channel every day. Smh.
Trump lost and your beliefs don't matter.
An ad for a war game. Inescapable, deposited right in the middle.
Calling them a beast, whereas people laughing if Russia field the same
The "T' series started with the T-26 not the T-64 ... who writes this inaccurate b.s ???
He meant modern MBT family.
And you're wrong too, the first russian T-series machine was the T-18 tank.
T-64 was held inside Russia because it was better, they didn't want to export it. it was the tank upgraded to survive a nuclear war. T-72 was cheaper and easier to downgrade and export and the t-80 chewed fuel.
If you want to play the T64 in War Thunder prepare to grind for about 3 years or pay through the nose.
"Sponsored by War Thunder. To feel what it's like to climb inside a T64 or other combat vehicle ........." volunteer in Ukraine or, preferably, send your cash to Ukraine volunteers to help pay for their defence.
Better chance doing that than playing War Thunder. I actaully tried playing that game for a couple of weeks, still was stuck in janky old WW1/interbellum era tanks. Couldnt even get to WW2 era, let alone T64s...........
It's sad how low this channel has fallen, "according to Ukranian sources" and then proceeds to announce record breaking tank kill at 6 miles 🤣🤣🤣, what's next i wonder, taking ghost of Kiev as a real pilot in the next aviation video... 🤦
This channel never cared much about facts.
Yeah when i heard the story about how a guy survived a OD on meth managed to survive and catch enemy camp on fire in middle of winter i knew they blowing smoke up our asses
@@andyrew9794 Lol, what? I must have missed that one...
@@nielsenn7012 Hello there Mr Smoothbrain, how's it going?? Who said it's a 3 day operation?? I know, western "expert" analysts on CNN, I've watched it. It's war, even goat headers can be dangerous when America gifts them high tech weaponry... 🤦🤷 What does your smooth brain think, that in the war you can't loose a single vehicle to be able to win?? 🤣🤡
Smells like communist in here...
Wasn’t the auto loader mangling arms a myth? Don’t they have a thin piece of sheet metal protecting against that?
yes you have to legit put your arm there knowingly