How Bad Was The T-64 Tank?

Looking at the Soviet T-64 Main Battle Tank, there’s a lot of interesting stuff we can talk about. For example the fact that it was the first Soviet Main Battle Tank to feature an autoloader and one of the first tanks to have composite armor. It was used in several wars such as the Transnistria war, the first Chechen war, the war in Donbas, and the current war in Ukraine. However, today, we’ll not talk about all the tank’s achievements and how great it is, but rather the opposite. Today, we’re gonna talk about how bad the T-64 tank was.
Credits for the video idea go to Spookston, one of my favorite War Thunder KZbinrs. He also used to make short history videos about how bad tanks were but he doesn’t do them anymore because of health problems and limited time.
Anyways, hello and welcome to the Bobi and Tanks KZbin channel, and enjoy this video. Please note that I usually try to stay unbiased in my videos (except for the few jokes I like to make) but in this video, I will purposefully talk about how bad the T-64 tank was. So please, do not accuse me of doing pro-Western propaganda.
Enjoy :)
__
Timestamps:
Intro: 00:00
Firepower: 01:45
Movement: 04:52
Protection: 06:05
3-man Crew: 07:15

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

You forgot to mention up until 1985, the T-64's hull armor is either 80-105-20 or 30-80-105-20, which means if anything penetrates the first steel layer, the back plate is too thin to sustain whatever remains of the projectiles. A problem which was fixed on the T-80B and T-72A which have 60-100-45 and 60-105-50 respectively

[@levilastun829]

The newly built T-64BV's received a new hull armour layout which is 60-35-30-35-45, the 35mm plates being textolite. But these variants were only produced from 1985 to 1987, as such there are quite a small number of these compared to other T-64 variants. Another thing is, most T-64BV's weren't newly built, but modernized T-64B's, which have retained the 30-80-105-20 front armour layout.

[@apyllyon]

The same Front hull layout problem did exist in T-72M and A until they did increase the thickness of the back plate in similar fashion in T-72U, early Urals did appear with the old hull layout. Modernization of T-72 A was amongst the 1st soviet mbts to use the similar armour pack desing although at thinner plates than T-64 BV,starting with 60-15-15-15-50 Armour scheme. followed by 60-10-10-20-20-50 layout. Large number of older 72´s were overhauled and rebuild with either hull layout. Both Layout revisions were interim solutions, and had relatively little improvement in terms of protection qualities. As an improved T-64, T-80 originally had very similarly ineffective front hull, it was 1st revised in T-80B and later again improved in T-80BV. Earlier appeared in 1978 while latter was modernized with the T-64´s in 1985. During the Hull retrofits soviets didn´t only change the layout of the hull thicknes but also qualitive composition of the Steel plating, T-80BV adopting newer high hardness-High tensile steel plates, further improvements were made the front turret Kvarz fillers in T-80U. Soviets were well aware of the hull thickness isssue of various MBT´s and 1st arsenal or workshop fix usually was to weld an extra plate up to 20mm covering the front arc of the hull, before going for larger retrofits.

[@nemisous83]

That's not a problem with the tank that's more so a doctrinal thing. T-64 was built in the era where the greatest threat to tanks was HEAT-FS so it's armor array is mostly steel and textolite. This is also why T-64 and T-72 don't have safe ammo storage because in the 60's and 70's the idea was don't get hit and if you do get hit don't get penetrated. Other western tanks of this era just tried not to get hit because the tanks were effectively wall to wall ammunition.

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

Easily my favourite Soviet MBT, from the prototypes and production to the upgrades and overall appearance!

[@TPWR1337]

You say that you are a fan of Spookston, but you still claim that autoloaders in T-series tanks cause injuries. Even Spookston has said multiple times that this is not true. It literally happened once during maintenance (broke his arm but nothing permanent) but never in combat or practice. There are guards that prevent the crew from putting their limbs in places where they can be hurt, and there is also no reason for the crew to position themselves in a way that they can be injured by the autoloader.

[@burningphoneix]

I'm tired of these "autoloader eats crewmember" myths continuing to make their way through tank enthusiast spaces.

[@bobiwt]

You are pretty much right in what you‘re saying. But I do have to say firstly: Being a fan of Spookston doesn‘t mean I‘ve see all of his videos. Secondly, I did not say the autoloader ever ripped an arm off. I presented it as a possibility by using the word „could“. Now, someone else also said almost the same thing you said. And I gotta be honest, I should have also said that the autoloader never actually ripped an arm off or so. So I admit this was a mistake from my side.

[@starwarsfan5492]

Ah yes "arm breaks" russian (in an unfair communist country where health care is close to none existant): this is fine

[@nemisous83]

@@bobiwt well there are a lot of things that "could" hurt a crew member inside a tank. For example standing behind the gun breach on a Western tank which happen more often than you would think however we aren't saying that manual loaders are dangerous to the crew.

[@nemisous83]

@@starwarsfan5492 broken arms don't require really any form of "advanced healthcare" people have been resetting bones and splinting them for thousands of years.

[@rs5974]

Keep makeing this great vids!

[@bobiwt]

Thanks, will do!

[@cascadianrangers728]

Bad or not it sold pretty well; On paper, especially for the time, the t64 was bleeding edge and very impressive, revolutionary even.

[@kindlingking]

It was revolutionary, but also undercooked to the point of all tanks produced were stationed near Kharkov where they were built, because they constantly broke and were near impossible to fix. It took more than a decade to bring T-64 to usable form, but by that point it became outclassed by it's "cheap alternative" T-72.

[@nemisous83]

It didn't sell at all though the only reason Ukraine has a lot of them is because that is where the factory that produced them was so when the Soviet Union fell apart Ukraine was effectively left with thousands of T-64's that most were in pretty terrible condition.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

While far from perfect, it is probably worth thinking about what ammunition handling in tanks before the T-64 was like. The quick access ready rounds were strapped to the inside of the turret armor - at least as vonrable - in not more so - than the propellant charges of the carousel. Once the first five to ten rounds were used, then you needed to grab the munitions from other parts of the tank, greatly slowing rate of fire. This is also at a time where first-round hit was much less likely, so you needed to plan on two or three shells per target. A system that doesn't slow down after the first pair of targets is pretty handy. Refilling the shells after a battle might be fatiguing, but that is compared to firing your ready rounds, pulling back behind the firing line, moving shells from storage to ready, then moving back up. At least in theory, most of the loading system, is lower in the tank hull, so a hit to the turret is less harmful. Think of the way old battleships had a gun house up top, and then several stories of storage and handling below. I wouldn't want to serve in any armored vehicle, but I do like to point out the historical context of the time. Just like how early electrical devices were not particularly safe, but were less likely to poision you like the competing gas lamps.

[@bobiwt]

Thank you so much for adding all this! Great information.

[@jonasgotzkes8294]

To my knowledge there has not been a single confirmed incident where any carousel autolader in the T-Series has ever "eaten" an arm or hurt a crew member. Could you please tell from which source you got that information?

[@bobiwt]

I did not say that the autoloader ever ripped off an arm of a crew member. I always said „could“, meaning it was a possibility which made the autoloader so dangerous. So your information is right, there has not been a single confirmed case of an autoloader ripping an arm off.

[@jonasgotzkes8294]

You are right Brother, I misheard. On the other hand, I don´t quite get why you would make a section about how unsafe the loading mechanism is for the crew, when there never has been a case where the loader was unsafe? You make it sound like a large possibility/something that occurs rather often, even tho it never did.

[@bobiwt]

@@jonasgotzkes8294 When it comes to that I gotta say you‘re probably right. I just wanted to mention it as it‘s something that people often talk about. I should have also mentioned that it never actually happened. Thanks for telling me!

[@jonasgotzkes8294]

No problem man, I appreciate you actually engaging with criticism. I only found your channel yesterday and quite like what I've seen so far, keep up the good work👍

[@bobiwt]

@@jonasgotzkes8294 Thank you so much I really appreciate it 😃

[@nemisous83]

The only main issue with this video is it relies on a lot of rumors and speculation. 1. The autoloader was never a danger to its crew this is an old cold war rumor that the autoloader has a habit of stuffing crewmembers in the gun breech even though there isnt any evidence or reports to suggest this being the case. 2. The 3 man crew doesnt mean less people for maintenance because the overall composition of a tank battalion remains the same. Just ask the Koreans, Japanese, and French who all have autoloading tanks. Generally speaking there isnt any task that requires more than 3 people and most PMCS can be conducted by 1 person or 2 if they want to be extra thorough. 3.Also this isnt warthunder if a crew member is injured it usually means the tank was penetrated which either means two things its time to RTB while other tanks cover your retreat if the tank can still move or abandon the tank. The "replacing a crewmember" really only works in practice if its only the loaders that is injured. Because if the round penetrates the gunners side both the gunner and commander are dead and it's effectively time bail out.

[@danielc2701]

The "less crew" thing is only for units isolated in deployments. It happens, like when you throw a track while detached to other units but it's not really that big a problem, you just take a bit longer and a lot more swearing to get it done. It's more a QoL thing.

[@nemisous83]

@@danielc2701 well if it's that dire then everyone is pitching in to help fix the track. However you only need 2 people to replace a track any American tanker knows that it's usually PVT loader and PFC Driver usually doing all the work while SPC gunner and the LT are just fucking off. But it also depends on the severity of the broken/thrown track

[@danielc2701]

@@nemisous83 As I already said, it's not really a problem. more a quality of life thing.

[@JohnF0X]

The Limbs getting cut by the autoloader is more myth than fact. one has to deliberately try to put a limb into the mechanism since the crew compartment is so cramped and your arms pretty much fixed to the controls. Something also stated by the Chieftain who however crawled through a T72 and not T64

[@nemisous83]

Chieftain's video also debunked the bogus myth that you could only be 5'7 or shorter to fit inside a T-72.

[@endermarine1686]

its used by congo so has likely seen combat in the second congo war

[@ANukeWithLegs]

Its not one of the first tanks but the Very First mass produced tank to have it

[@TheDumpDucker]

I love the whole idea and look of the T-64! And the name always reminds me of the Nintendo 64!

[@englishcrab]

mans is cooking

[@deusvult7721]

Unfortunately this is a very generic video about soviet tanks. Insert any early soviet MBT and you have the scenario already written. very poor and basic info on autoloader - you could have said something about the critical dislocation parameter (damage tolerance) or loading speed vs the other soviet mechanism but you decided to carry on with the info any warthunder player can deduct just by watching the x-ray in game (vulnerability and that clothes can snag, which isn't even a thing). Engine - instead of mentioning how easily replaceable it is designed to be (that topic alone can take longer than half of this video) compared to T-72 or T-80 engines, you mention that it is prone to fires, but you don't mention that this issue was an early design issue, later obviously corrected. I'm surprised you didn't mention the slow reverse speed of the tank, kinda goes off script. I also don't see the point of talking about how bad the tank is vs how good it is in separate videos, but now that's subjective. What's objective is that there's really a lot of room for improvement. YT is full of such videos and they are really boringly repetitive - generic soviet MBT intro > generic small hitbox line > generic ammo stowage vulnerability line > generic early engine issue line > generic cannon description line > generic low reverse speed line = low quality content.

[@paufernandezboj5517]

That's Because its The classic hate to russia now Because The war, and not a neutral rewiev about an intresting tank line like The T series in The cold war

[@deusvult7721]

@@paufernandezboj5517 you are wrong twice. 1. Nothing wrong in hating Z ruzzian nazis. 2. The review is just poor. It’s not a ruzzian tank, it’s a soviet and a Ukrainian tank. The current invasion brought much more interesting info about the vehicles than any museum review could do, and especially any war thunder x-ray analysis.

[@paufernandezboj5517]

@@deusvult7721 nothing wrong you say , when Ukraine is the same as russia The Two are nazi states of post USSR sphere of influence so in that you are wrong defending The ukranians, Because for me I don't GIVE a shit about no one of those states and second yes The video IS poorly writen but The History of The T series is intresting, that's Because you can know about how they thinking to countermesure a leopard 1 or a M45

[@O-Allah-Hu]

Super 👍🏼

[@KardasheviteUltravisionary]

How about the issues of the T-80 platform next?

[@bobiwt]

I‘ll definitely do that in the near future! Thanks for the suggestion!

[@Archer89201]

Still going strong in Ukraine after half a century. Problems with it now are because when it was 1st fielded most of the threats didnt exist, when it came it had to face mostly tanks with 90-105mm guns and old wire guided maclos missilws like swiss cobra etc.

[@prfwrx2497]

When it came out in 1964, it was unmatched. These days it's long in the tooth. But with applique and thermals (esp. For gunner and commander) and modern 125mm APFSDS, it remains competitive with anything Russia or China puts out. The biggest weakness is dogshit gun depression and nonexistent reverse speed

[@bobiwt]

Gun depression and reverse speed are - well - depressing. But that‘s pretty normal for all Russian tanks.

[@levilastun829]

The T-64 never received thermal sights while in Soviet service. It actually had 1st generation night vision for both the gunner and commander, in addition it had a commander's turret override system which could be considered an early hunter killer capability. The only Soviet thermal sight that was put into service on tanks is the Agava-2, which was mounted on a very small number of T-80U's. While the T-64 received a thermal sight because Ukraine tried to modernize a significant number of it's tanks.

[@bobiwt]

@@levilastun829 That‘s interesting, thanks for adding this!

[@prfwrx2497]

​@@levilastun829 that is very much correct.

[@apyllyon]

@@levilastun829 Ealiest hunter Killer capable tank was T-10 Heavy tank where commander could lay horizontal and vertical coodrinates for the gunner from his cupola, 2nd to feature this was British Conqueror heavy tank which appeared later the same year. Both are dated back to 1957. Further the soviets relied on IR-night vision for ages using them well into the 2000s, before acces to the western tech gave them access to monochromatic thermals. The soviets passive NVG, was quite remarkable at the time, but the Active IR relied on mortar fired flares or on the use of the multiple spotlights with IR-filters fixed to gunmantles and commanders cupolas, and even then the range was overal around 1 km. Centurion and Patton series were quick to catch up in this regard and Especially late patton series appear with xenon light fixed on top of the gun tube, which was both a benefit and a curse in night combat.

[@chost-059]

the armour is quite bad, the hull armour is far worse than T-80B or T-72A which both improved the composite armour layout, also the engine is pretty awfull

[@apyllyon]

T-72s improved hull armour layout offered little difference in comparison to standard T64, the Improved T-80 hull was 1st to offer actual improvement, and T-80 was basicly a better T-64.

[@super48r]

the t64 had some good ideas for the time, but like most soviet/russian tanks its very overated and hyped and some people really should stop glazing them as much as they are i see people often saying "a tank is a tank" oh so you want to fight a m1a2 abrams in a t55? at that point you got better chances with a RPG

[@TheDumpDucker]

Yeah I agree, but the design looks great in my opinion! Maybe form is over function with this one!

[@super48r]

@@TheDumpDucker t64A looks okay but t64B is a beauty

[@ALV694]

Rpg27 did pen Abrams on multiple occasions

[@TheDumpDucker]

@@super48r exactly!

[@TheDumpDucker]

@@ALV694 yeah, but due to the survivable nature of the M1 the crew would survive even devastating damage. As apposed to Russian MBTs that are far more dangerous to operate if hit, and yes the crew would not survive. Although some western MBTs are lacking, yes even the famous M1 Abrams!

[@ALV694]

Ukraine 🇺🇦 be like: bylat