T-64 Main Battle Tank | TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR TANK

Development of the T-64 main battle tank commenced in 1954. First production tanks were delivered to the Soviet Army in 1963. Officially it was adopted only in 1967. It was publicly revealed in 1970. Over 6 000 of these MBTs off all versions were built. Some sources report that a total of 13 100 T-64 series tanks were built. During its introduction the T-64 was a very advanced tank, but had a number of significant drawbacks. It was never exported outside the Soviet Union. Currently it is in service with Ukraine (~ 1 500) and Uzbekistan (100). Russia had a couple of thousands T-64 tanks in storage, however some sources report, that by 2013 most of them have been scrapped. Some sources also report that in the early 2000s about 10 of these tanks were supplied from Uzbekistan to Angola, however this sale is not confirmed. In 2013 Ukraine sold 50 tanks to Congo. It was the first official export sale of this tank. Since 2014 upgraded Ukrainian Army T-64 tanks saw combat during ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. Also since 2014 a large number of surplus Russian T-64 tanks have been supplied to Russia-backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
The T-64 had improved armor protection comparing with the previous Soviet tanks. It was the first Soviet tank to use ceramic composite armor. The T-64 is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems.
Initial production version of the T-64 was armed with a fully-stabilized 115 mm gun. Essentially it was the same gun, as used on the previous T-62 medium tank. Initial production version of the T-64 is considered as a medium tank due to its caliber. It was not built in large numbers. The T-64 was the first Soviet tank to be fitted with an autoloader. At that time only the Swedish STRV-103 had such feature. The autoloader allowed to reduce the crew, as loader was no longer required. Reduction of the crew allowed to reduce the size of the turret. The T-64 fires HE, HE-FRAG, and APFSDS rounds. Maximum rate of fire was up to 10 rounds per minute.
Initial production version of the T-64 was fitted with a single coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun. It had no roof-mounted machine gun.
This tank has a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver.
Initial production version of the T-64 was powered by a 4TPD opposed diesel engine, developing 700 hp. It was a Soviet unsuccessful attempt to copy powerpack of the British Chieftain. On later models it was replaced with updated 5TD and 5TDF engines. These engines were more compact due to their opposed design, had high power output, however they were notoriously unreliable. Engine compartment of the T-64 is nearly twice smaller than that of the T-55. The T-64 can run on various fuels, including diesel, petrol or kerosene. The tank has a fuel consumption of 170-200 liters/100 km traveling on hard surface roads and 300-450 liters/100 km when traveling on field roads. Add-on fuel tanks can be fitted to extend the maximum road range to around 700 km. The T-64 tank is fitted with a deep wading kit. It can ford water obstacles up to 5 m deep.
At the time of its introduction the T-64 was a very advanced machine. On the other side it was expensive to build and troublesome to maintain. A less capable, but cheap and reliable T-72 tank was introduced a couple of years later. The T-72 was produced in thousands. It was the workhorse of the Soviet Army. Production numbers of the T-64 were smaller and it was rather a force multiplier. Initially the T-64 had some fire control advantages, but that diminished with introduction of improved versions of the T-72. Currently the T-64 tank is out dated.
Hope you enjoy!!
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite
#135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: www.facebook.c...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming

[@_Matsimus_]

Hello all! Hope you are enjoying the content lately! As you can see....KZbin is not having any of my military content and I am struggling to make views. I would really appreciate if you could help me out by clicking the like button and also sharing this to your own social media or to your own outlets. It means a lot. Please keep safe and stay calm during this tough time. Have a wonderful day!! Matt

[@maxelsoro6292]

Tobe honest matt That t64 and t90 will be way too close to be a laser tank Just add some new electric generator and new armour and that will be awesome

[@CharliMorganMusic]

I'll hit the bell when you stop shit posting. These videos are why I watch your content, but the slice of life garbage only clouds my feed.

[@creepydutchman]

im a simple guy, i click like everytime you post a video even before watching it

[@tasman006]

The T64 at the beginning had a lot of problems with transmission and the engine and that's why the tank troops they where first deployed to where near the factory that made them. Once the bugs where ironed out and it had changed to the 125mm gun yeah I'll admit it was a force to be reckoned with the only tank to truly stand up to it at that time would have been the Chieftain tank with the 120mm rifled L11 gun and the soviets where worried by the Chieftain that's why the T72 was put into production being cheaper and with more being built to counter it. You didn't go into the T64's combat record it saw its firs combat in Moldova some where said to have served in Chechnya but limited and of course on both sides of the Ukrainian civil war the best version to date made by the Ukrainians called the T64 Bulat don't believe you didn't add it. See vid below. And you forgot that Nato has that superior gun depression and elevation going for them which they have proved in combat to be the winning factor with a very good trained crew. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXaYaoSVhcybeck

[@pavelsincu5673]

Matsimus pls make a video about Romanias military!!!!!! PLSSSS

[@peteturner3928]

I was a Chieftain crewman towards the end of the Cold War, we feared the 64 far more than we did the 72 and the early 80's (effectively based on the 64 but made more cheaply and in larger numbers). We knew it was only issued to professional elite units and not just conscript farmers sons, so it deserved to be given respect, yes compared to our gun kit it was limited in engagement ranges, however their ability to fire decent ATGW's through the gun tube negated this a lot. Very good wagons, I had my first ever meeting with a T-64 in Kiev (met lots of 55's, 62's and 72's over the years, but this was a first for me) a couple of weeks back and it never fails to amaze me how small they looked compared to contemporary Western wagons.

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

"it was limited in engagement ranges" Hmmm, weren't Chieftains lacking composite armor in the hull?

[@peteturner3928]

@@ГеоргийМурзич Mk.10 & 11's Chieftain's had a composite block on turret front and the hull protecting the front of the turret ring as part of the STILLBREW add on armour package. I think it was envisaged to be able to add ERA or similar in country to the hull like we did with the Challenger 1's in the first Gulf War if ever needed. It would have been a quick and easy fix to bodge up. The late models were very good tanks (even by today's standards and with a decent crew, they could still spoil your afternoon), just the powerpack let the old girls down as we all know. As for engagement ranges the L11A5 and gun kit of the Chieftain comfortably out ranged the 125mm and its somewhat more primitive fire control systems, especially on the Mk.11 which had TOGS, as this was exactly the same gun kit as fitted to Challenger 1, so it could see miles further too at night. Remember this is still the gun that holds the longest tank 'vs' tank kill.

[@ItsATrap614]

@CAG Hotshot Lacking penetration power? While most nations still had 105mm guns the Soviets had a 125mm smoothbore which could fire 3BM22 which could punch through the lower glacis of Chieftain at 2km, the upper glacis at close range and the turret near the commanders hatch at about 1km. fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

[@Prizrak-hv6qk]

Post WW2 Soviet Army was all conscripted. However, they prepared us for it since childhood. We would start getting military training in school and they instill in us a lot of patriotism and the feeling that military service is a sacred duty that we all owed. Also, there was compulsory universal education, so even the "farmer's son" wasn't some illiterate third world monkey. It's not like the Western grunts are all "professor's sons" themselves. To be a tanker in the USSR, first of all you had to pass the height requirement... you couldn't be tall or you'd have too much trouble with the ergonomics in these super low profile vehicles. So, all the really short guys were generally assigned to tank forces. Whether they were assigned to the T-55 reserves in Norilsk or the T-64 in E. Germany depended on how they did in testing and training. A T-64 assignment required a full year of training too. Also, all the officers went through 4 years of sort of a military university, effectively getting a BA in military science. To get past the lower ranks, you then had to do more military school to get a "Master's".

[@unwantedvoid1678]

T-64 wasn't elite units tanks. This is complete nonsense. T-64 was just hard as hell to operate it, so crews must be more expensed than on other tanks. Early T-72 versions was technically worser then T-64, but very soon later they outperform them in every aspect.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The t64 was the first break from the JS series and t10 series. They were very innovative and a great concerns NATO when they came out.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

But is still looks like a IS-3 from some angles.

[@m1a1abrams3]

we know, its after the t10 in the war thunder tree

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@m1a1abrams3 my knowledge comes with age. :-)

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@Joshua Ngau Ajang the t62 cost a lot more than the t55, so the t55 out lived it in production. The T64 was way more. Key thing to note, no export variànts.

[@robert.m6755]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Although, the two only nations apart the Soviet that had the T-64A and the T-64B were East Germany and the Mongolian People's Republic.

[@iBOOM]

Sad to see that such great and educational content gets double fisted by KZbin ;(

[@vanderwallstronghold8905]

And yet KZbin allows bullshit channels with annoying robot voices.

[@lokiwebster2984]

VanderWall Stronghold, or torture.

[@danyvarna5094]

SJ Ws do their best to k ill FB and YT

[@allahsnackbar9915]

@adidas a good chance someone flagged that. flagging things as hate speech is super effective and gets things taken down almost immediately.

[@allahsnackbar9915]

@adidas with the amount of historical german songs sitting around on the net i cant really see that yours did the damage. but i guess thats up to the youtube algorithms to know

[@CloneDAnon]

You forgot that it was also capable of firing laser guided anti tank missile from its barrel. It was another first in tank building.

[@JustPeasant]

That sound of an 2-stroke diesel, pleases me, ALWAYS 👍🎵🎶

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

Especially the sound of it not starting again. Perfection 😉👌

[@JustPeasant]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 then it's settled. Agricultural (Soviet one, naturally) tractor it is 🚜

[@JustPeasant]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 or an ALCo one? kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHnWoWOHa66GeNE

[@jasonbecraft2358]

The T-64 always been my favorite Soviet tank.

[@AlexanderVadimovich]

Same ✨

[@kinjiharma4878]

"STAY POSITIVE" -wait

[@komorevie]

Did he fucking stutter?

[@robert.m6755]

Stay positive? Like tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2?

[@rickpalo1]

Well done, always entertaining . We need diversions like this to keep us sane, it really helps, thanks.

[@KiLDELTA]

Matsimus, do you still play Armored Warfare? noticed that it is usually a reference video for your armored vehicle reviews.

[@annelisemeier283]

Yeah, was asking myself the same thing

[@KiLDELTA]

@@yeah5992 american server is gone but then its now merged under Global server with constant updates. I play this daily after i play Warthunder. Most players are from RU and EU

[@buttahXD]

@@KiLDELTA mostly because we don't like launchers full of malware, to be honest.

[@DrBanzai]

I consider Steven Zaloga’s books on the T-34- the T-90 as bibles for soviet tank development and how much infighting there was surrounding these tanks, and I highly recommend them (cheap through amazon kindle)

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Every decade produces a tank ahead of it's time. I think this was that tank for the 60's same as the Centurion was for the 40's. Some of the other decades it's a bit more debateable.

[@hyrumjohansson9904]

uhh Nothing better than having matsimus's channel to watch during the zombie apocalypse, love your content dude as per usual and the rate your producing vidoes atm! keep it up man love it

[@Knallteute]

Technologically advanced? Yes. But also a cramped afv that was a mess in terms of reliability and quality in production. The t64 was held back and close to being scraped because of its teething problems. Karakarov actually produced them on their own at first because the gov didn't want them because of the obj. 430. Still an awesome tank and ahead of its time. I really wouldn't have wanted to sit in a leo against it.

[@Strasak--]

It's going to be a great day when The Chieftain gets his hands on a T-64 and/or T-72.

[@daddust]

Christopher Velez T72 should be very easy.

[@petesy03]

Christopher Velez oh yes the British chieftain, how many were built for the British army? And how many minutes do you think the British army would keep the Russians busy?? I’ll be extremely generous and say 40

[@the_victorious_1]

@@petesy03 he isn't talking about the tank, he's talking about a historian who refers to himself as the chieftain and tours in and around tanks, posting the videos on KZbin. He is an ex US army tanker, and gives his thoughts and opinions. He's well worth a watch.

[@petesy03]

The_Victorious_1 cool , I didn’t know that, thank you👍

[@the_victorious_1]

@@petesy03 no problem!

[@TWG-zw3en]

Watched many videos and have always loved the content! As a former Bomber just wanna say Ubique and wish you all the best and hope you and yours stay healthy and happy.

[@Delpuertadecabetha]

Thanks for the motivation Mat-we gonna stay alert and safe. Nice video allota information and quality.

[@leotka]

Ukraine has newest modification T-64 - T64 Bulat. Very effective and low cost main battle tank that show as very effective during Donbass conflict.

[@franklee9115]

I think the most interesting feature of T-64 is the tiny road wheels. They are smaller than the M113 road wheels. The auto-loader borrows the previous battleship loading mechanism such as the chain push rod and the seperate ammo.

[@АланМагометовичИсаев]

The T-64 was specifically designed for use in a nuclear war. Therefore, he has rollers without rubber bandages.

[@potator9327]

Are we talking about the real tank or the design? The design was excellent in many ways, but the real object suffered from serious problems. For many of the tanks, mobility was an unattainable goal because the engine was constantly causing problems and a significant percentage of the tanks were simply not usable at any given time. Also the brilliant values of the cannon were counteracted by the fact that the aiming optics did not allow for target acquisition at the possible distances. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Well done Matt. I think we could all live in an NBC overpressured MBT at this time :) Take care of your family too.

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

The T54-55 and T64 look pretty similar. The way we identified them was between the outer sights. The 64 has the round "hamburger" shaped sight, and the 54-55 has the "hotdog" shaped sight. If I remember correctly

[@cczevak5313]

Indeed. A striking difference if you can see the tank from the side is the road wheels. Also, the tank is a bit longer and wider than the T-54/55

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

@@cczevak5313 wasn't the T-64 series tank used in the Russian Afghanistan conflict?

[@momopirou3107]

Hey. in which Graviteam game is there the t64? none of the Operation Star DLCs have it, nor does Steel Armor BoW.

[@Sacto1654]

Alas, the T-64 was still not a paragon of reliability even in the 1980's. The very complex design by Soviet standards made serviceability an issue, and were assigned primarily to Soviet divisions based in East Germany and (probably) western Czechoslovakia until they were supplanted by the better T-80 by the the late 1980's.

[@bryanpelton6646]

An excellent and informative video sir. But you did forget to mention the greatest advantage of the T-64; it was the only Soviet tank in which the commander could fire the DShK M-1938 Heavy Machine Gun from within a closed hatch. All the other tanks required the commander to open up and expose himself to fire it.

[@MrBlindTony]

T-64 actually seeing the battle right now in Ukraine because of the Russian invasion. Yes, they are in later modifications. But still, it is Ukrainian T-64 fighting T-64s and T-72 of Russian-terrorist troops.

[@alexandrecredidiooliveira7176]

Mat let me ask you you did any vid about AT guns? Like the most known AT guns in the actuallity?

[@drewschumann1]

The problem is that Soviet engineers made a huge error making the T tanks next to worthless on the battlefield. The single most important thing a tank can do on the modern battlefield is to assume a hasty hull down position, which none of the Soviet tanks could do, due to lack of gun depression caused by the insane emphasis on low profile.

[@sanchezramirez4280]

Great video, but could you put on the screen some of the specifiations? It is very hard to recognize it only by hearing, especialy if they have no name but military marking with many symbols, numbers and letters. For example, armour thicknes is easier to aquire if we can see it in chart or schematics. Regards.

[@houstonhelicoptertours1006]

Some advanced systems for its time, but the quality of Soviet-era welding brings tears to my eyes.

[@jasonz7788]

Great presentation thank you

[@Combatwombat-sn7ng]

It is quite a scary thought to think of T64s fighting Centurions and early chieftains and M60s

[@edwardgilmour9013]

Has the Canadian Army shut down that you have all this time to do these? Interesting video by the way.

[@erikvonthein3039]

Very good video, but the ringing in the background is annoying.

[@arneldobumatay3702]

Love the closing footage: tank burning rubber!

[@timorlov3000]

"If you didn't enjoy today's video please hit that like button..." hhmmmmmm

[@crazycrab8578]

when i was in Germany 1985ish, i was on holiday in Lubeck, N/Germany, i was watching DDR TV, they were showing their propagander films, one i watched was a t72ish on a moving vibrating tack thingy, it was stationery, but being bump around like it was moving, and they were firing, what a good idea, we did'nt have any thing like that, saves a lot of track time and engine maintenance, roll on, fire a few rounds, get off, next,

[@GannibalGaming]

What is that tube at the back of the torrent?

[@paulscountry456]

These are good tanks, much lower profile than Abrams, still formidable on the modern battlefield, Russians make damn good armor.

[@czartraktheprotogen]

Pauls Country appreciate finding a guy that doesn’t say “russian so its bad”. I think some people forget that the Abrams used to suck. Every NATO MBT has seen major weaknesses

[@paulscountry456]

@@czartraktheprotogen I have tore into almost all the different types of Armor the Israelis captured in 67 and 73 and have a great admiration for the Russians.The ZSU 23 -4 was a priority target in cold war training for some NATO countrys, it was feared and very effective.Russians know how to fight.

[@paulscountry456]

I dont like Turbine tanks as much as piston, Challenger is by far my favorite then Leopard 2.

[@mancubmowgli676]

Thanks very much for a superb video 👍 Stay blessed

[@iansmith5174]

There are two theories on why the T-64 wasn't exported. One; that it was so good the Soviets kept it all for themselves, or two; that it was so complex and unreliable that none of the Soviet's allies wanted it. It was certainly produced in much lower numbers than any other Soviet tank of the post-WWII era so there is evidence to support the latter.

[@MuireKnight]

You could say both. The Soviets didn't want to export most of their high tech equipment even to their allies in case the Americans might have gotten their hands on it if relations turned sour. (plus they didn't want their allies to becomes too powerful and independent).They would also often sell brand new equipment but at inferior quality and capability than their own versions.(The Mig 29 being an obvious example). And besides complexity and reliability problems a main factor was pretty much cost. The T-72 was more reliable sure but is was far simpler and cheaper to produce in mass numbers and to sell in mass numbers since other soviet allies to actually afford to buy or build license versions.

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

Since it was indeed a far superior tank "1v1" against all NATO tanks, NATO also had a massive air force advantage and they may have relied a bit too much on it... NATO also had extremely well performing ATGM's ! Remind that tanks for NATO were supposed to engage in ambushs light tanks, IFV's and far inferior forces in quality.. Such tanks like the T-64 (which i really like) were only fielded to "Guard" units, in very few numbers.. if they appreared on the battlefield, they were supposed to be engaged eithe by aviation or anti-tank units with ATGM's Compared to modernized T-55 and the soon introducing T-72, T-64 as indeed feared by NATO, but also not such a worry vs tactics of NATO Don't forget that at the same time, T-64 were so scarce for Guard Units that T-10 were still fielded ! (up until 1990 !) AND THIS THING SOUNDS LIKE A CHIEFTAIN ON STEROIDS ! (same type of engine)

[@dannythehonestgamer6051]

Ummm. Mat. Did you say that the T-64 have a 150 mm main gun at about 6:25 in the video? I have played that part several times and it sounds like 150 mm every time. And when i put on the tex it agreed that you said 150 mm. So the later models of T-64 tanks were nerfed and only received a puny 125 mm gun since the use of a 150 mm guns was not wery sporting or?

[@kikiarmada1773]

Its 115mm gun..

[@travishabursky4362]

My question is what are the torque n/m values of that two-stroke diesel? 700 horses are great and all, but a lot of power production means nothing if the engine doesn’t make much power.

[@bruceboyer8187]

Was the ROF much differeng for the 125mm gun on the T64? Did the auto loader change? I would expect it had too. Impressive ROF for the 115mm gun w autoloader

[@gogogomes7025]

The idea that soviet tank crews at the 60/70s would be badly trained or have low morale, it's wishful thinking at it's finnest.

[@Kalashnikov413]

what?

[@jberry1982]

Easy t64 IR light was on the opposite side of all T55 and T62 and T72 tanks t72 had an extra set of road wheels than earlier models

[@dannygelbart6827]

@Matsimus, question for you. What would you rather have in more numbers for your hypothetical army: More Tanks or more IFVs?

[@richardque4952]

I brought trumpheter 1/34th t64 kit.I am surprised it was slightly smaller and more compact.than t72.tank.

[@romulodecastrodasilva5863]

How are the price in 60s of a T-62 and a T-64?

[@Raptor-N-L]

How can you mix a T64 with a T72? T64 ir light left side next to the barrel, small wheels, exhaust in the back and it is the only russian tank with small round holes in the track. T72 ir light right side next to the barrel, large wheels, exhaust left side, gun mount on top has a small searchlight in opposite direction. Hope this helps you in future.

[@ИосебМумладзе]

Я служил танкистом на Т-64А ( 1973 года выпуска) в Украине. 1975-1977 гг.

[@MisterRz]

so how much did every unit cost to make back then?

[@pizzagogo6151]

Your opinion is perfectly reasonable (and I maybe misunderstanding how strict your are being with “60-70s”) but can’t agree, on rare occasions T55 met the Centurion (such as 1973) I think it demonstrated clear superiority. M551 was very innovative....... but what a rolling turd that was 😁.Soviet tanks often more innovative yes but doesn’t equate to combat superiority. Ps. Thanks thanks for keeping up the these fun distractions when the world is so much grimness at the moment.

[@ethandertz1160]

I would completely disagree with the statement that Soviet tanks in the 1960s and 1970s we're simply better than everything the West had. In the 1960s, the T-62 and T-54/55 series we're the main tanks of the Warsaw Pact. I wouldn't say that a T-62 is just flat out better than an M60A1 or even a later Centurion variant. The T-62 had a more powerful gun, but had worse fire control systems, gun depression, and was more cramped leading to crew fatigue. The M60A1 had the issue of size, and a weaker gun; however, the M68 was still capable of destroying a T-62. Later on in the decade the Chieftain would appear, which could destroy a T-64 from the front. When it comes to composite armor, the West had been researching it since the 1950s. Composite armor had been tested on the T95 medium, and the M60A1 was planned to have composite armor on the turret. It was abandoned due to issues with manufacture of the armor. The U.S also was expecting the MBT-70 to be adopted in a few years, so it was decided that composite armor for a tank that was expected to serve only a few years was pointless.

[@GoViking933]

Enjoyed this, good job!

[@tzafas2]

Super honest informantion that in the 50s , 60s and 70s the soviet tanks were better than their western counterparts.

[@pei8988]

if you want to identify a T64/T72 from the front, just look at the infrared searchlight is on the left side of the turret, and the T72 is on the right. The track of the T64 does look like the track on the T80/Late mode T72, but it is a bit narrower and with hole in them And yes, i am a T64 fanboy, it is not that good as a tank design.But as a prototype that push the design to its limit, it is not that bad!

[@patriotenfield3276]

Hey Matt how do ya'get your hands on on of these last Bois in Ukraine

[@Cnupoc]

T-64 was heavily used in the Eastern Ukraine civil war by both parties.

[@Vollification]

NATO: "Are our soldiers allowed to do this?" O.o

[@dnate697]

As they said on Ft. Knox during Armor training, "If you can be seen, you can be killed". We trained right from the start only to engage any adversary from the front as a last resort. Our kill boxes were set up for 45 to 90 off-axis from the front and interleaved. The biggest problem NATO weren't tanks but the Grid-Square killing Soviet Artie tubes and rockets. That included explosives and chemicals. The other saying was, "Only the dead sees the end of the war."

[@cav1stlt922]

@dnate697... which AOB or AOAC were you in?

[@dnate697]

@@cav1stlt922 If I remember correctly, Basic and AIT were different BDEs so of course, the Battalions were different! In first week of In processing was in the WW11 old barracks. When we got assigned, 30 of us got sent to 1st BDE, 3rd Bn I think. Then is was Co D 1st Plt. Just before seating, it was; Rat Sh*t Bat s**t bucket full of c*m. Ass kickin' moth****ckin Delta 3 one Haauwhoa! LOL!

[@cav1stlt922]

@@@dnate697 .... 1st Training Brigade was my AIT too, just a stone throw away from one of the post theater. Years later, I returned to Knox after my commission and attended Armor Office Basic (AOB) and Armor Office Advance Course (AOAC); I think my times in Knox were the best post I had stateside.

[@dnate697]

@@cav1stlt922 I was just a Private E1 and was across the street from the Rusty Bolt Inn, that's been long gone since!

[@cav1stlt922]

@@@dnate697 ... Hey, that was how I started too, LOL; graduated AIT as a PFC. No matter, you were still a fellow brother in arms. We will always have our fond memories.

[@humphrey4976]

They have a very long death trumpet

[@barukkazhad8998]

There is a very interesting US army film for tank crews about how to defeat these tanks and survive...dig in and shoot the 64 in the belly rear or side only

[@mandersonmatters3012]

Figuratively punch through, not literally. The shell doesn’t have fists.

[@nemisous83]

Why does everyone keep spreading the myth that T-72 is a watered down T-64? The T-72 Ural is only slightly worse because of its extra weight however T-72A completely leaves T-64A in the dust in terms of firepower, mobility, and protection and T-72B is complete overkill. T-64BV has long since been obsolete and isnt even comparable to older reserve T-72B1's used by Russia.

[@castercamber]

Give me a human loader any day. Faster loading and extra man for the fight and to pull maintenance. (If you've ever thrown track, broke a torsion bar or sheared a sprocket you'll agree with me.)

[@kegan51]

It has a reverse speed of 4kmph, engine change 48hrs. By 1980 Nato night fighting capabilities negated all WP advantages from the 70's. The Israeli's destroyed something like 40 T72's in the Bekaa valley in 1982 with 105 APFDS.

[@PlatinumPanda]

Good Work Playa.

[@gerardandrew4820]

When the west first learned off the armor tickness of the T54, they where in shock, and replaced the 90mm for the much better British L7 105mm gun, then they learned about the T64 and panic struck again, the 105mm must be obsolete. Yet those countries realy fighting Soviet tanks like South Africa, put a 76 gun on the Rooikat because it could kill a T55. The 120mm gun on a M1 tank shoot right thru 2 T55 tanks, from the side in the gulf war. Armor tickness is one thing, the quality of your armor is something completely different.

[@lordemarsh6804]

Even if those claims were true, they were not build to withstand sabot rounds, and no one knows whether western tanks will too

[@bluntcabbage6042]

The idea that the L7 was being replaced because of the T-64 is fallacious. The L7 continued to serve diligently for decades after. The M1 was introduced with the 105mm L7 with modern ammunition, it was more than capable of killing a T-64 at any engagement distance.

[@xjamesx7047]

This is Ukraine's Main Battle Tank yes? Before they have themselves the T-84 Series of their MBT's. Maybe the one i only like about the Soviet Tank's, was the T-64 always.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

T-64 is still Ukraine's main battle tonk. They only made around 10 T-84s and they never saw combat. And most of T-84 "oplits" were sold to Thailand

[@xjamesx7047]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 Ah ok now i figure it out right, thanks for the response my friend. 👍😅

[@blee04524]

What’s the intro music??😿

[@otakunthevegan4206]

Imma Soviet Fanboy and even I can not tell at first glace if it's a T-62 or T-72 from a distance.

[@wouter0388]

Does anyone know the name of the game at 9:38?

[@vampyrcat866]

It looks like "steel beasts" i am not sure, though matsimus did make a few videos about it.

[@wouter0388]

@@vampyrcat866 i think you are right, thanks alot man.

[@redjacc7581]

important to remember that nato had far better tanks than the USSR and comparing the "wests" tanks to the units fielded by Israel during the yom kippur war is not great. They had very old designs like M48 pattons and centurians and still smashed the coalition tanks formations who didnt have any T-64's as you pointed out were not exported. Most of the tanks israel was up against were T-54's & T-55's. There were some formation that had T-62's as per the syrian 70th armoured brigade. Crew quality matters far more.

[@lowellleber1722]

I doubt that.

[@granapriego]

Great video.

[@321southtube]

Many things to take into account here. A tank is a machine. A machine needs good logistics, maintenance and supplies to keep it moving. It needs to be operated by highly trained and highly motivated soldiers who are independent thinkers and can take initiative when necessary and operate in a "leaderless" environment. A tank needs strong air, artillery and infantry to provide protection and boost its survivability. Russia lacks everything I just mentioned. US Artillery, M1's and airpower would decimate Russian armor. "However, any modern war would also heavily rely upon airpower, and the United States has more than twice the combat aircraft as Russia and nearly five times as many helicopters. Air supremacy might ultimately decide which ground force prevails on the ground, as Russia’s tanks would be vulnerable to destruction from the air should the U.S. gain air superiority. When it comes to modern war, technical capacity including range, precision accuracy, air-ground coordination and weapons efficacy would prove more decisive than numbers?"

[@jayzeldietermiguel6430]

10:23 who else expected a "clunk" sound here?

[@glennridsdale577]

Can you please say the word aluminium properly? Aloominum sets my teeth on edge at the best of times, but from a Brit it's utterly unforgivable.

[@maciek19882]

Modernized ERA in Bułat has gaps as o it covers only 70% of area

[@TheSerec]

What's the game at 9:20 called?

[@captainkhan3530]

plz make next video on Al-Khalid tank

[@hamodycraft1345]

I really think the T-64 is still good today.

[@Torterra24]

Thanks matt your videos keeps me going with all this virus crap

[@andyfriederichsen]

The T-72 is just a cheaper version of the T-64.

[@Schlipperschlopper]

Best and most effectice tank of its time, still better than the Leopard 2!

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

Chieftain (when it didn't breakdown) was likely the only tank in the late 60's to the late 70's that stood a very good chance or in some respects were superior to most Soviet tanks at that time. When the Soviets started making better/upgrades versions Chieftains advantages naturally weakened. One shortcoming update was using the new Chobham armour in packages that would be fitted in theatre before a conflict would kick off. But this wouldn't be possible if we had only hours or a couple of days notice.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

no, Chieftain, even when firing late 1970´s APDS rounds struggled to penetrate a T-64 or T-72 on ranges above 900m. While the T-64 and T-72 were capable of penetrating Chieftain on 2000m or with later ammunition on ranges up and beyond 3000m. Only in 1985 Chieftain and Challenger 1 got APFSDS wich allowed them to engage and penetrate enemy T-64 and T-72 early models on Ranges of 2000m. The UK lagged around 7-10 years behind in ammunition technology compared to the US and Germany and up to 17 years behind the sovjet union.

[@WorshipinIdols]

6,000 + were produced Matsimus. Think about it.

[@Kalashnikov413]

I thought it was around 11.000+

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@Kalashnikov413 not of the T-64. The T-64 was ground breaking. No export version. Strictly Soviet Army.

[@Kalashnikov413]

@@WorshipinIdols check Wikipedia

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@Kalashnikov413 I checked my brain

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@Kalashnikov413 excuse me. Just to clarify. No exports contemporaneously to it being relatively new. Not post collapse of-course.

[@adamscease4126]

Yeah and the French char b was a far superior tank to anything that the nazis had in 1940 but we all know how that worked out...

[@max__pain]

al - yoo - min - i - um

[@Hunter_Bidens_Crackpipe_]

Was superior, still is.

[@DokturProfesur]

The T64 is such a beast, just like its turbine powered big brother.

[@toilet_wrecker3244]

It seems weird that the US still has humman loaders in their tanks!

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

Finally a situation where CBRN protection is actually relevant. Sit inside your IFV in full mopps kit, avoid coronavirus.

[@TheHelghast1138]

Lol so true

[@SS-hw1ou]

I regret skipping gas mask ads on covert cabal vids

[@TacticsTechniquesandProcedures]

I served so long ago we used to call it NBC.

[@peoplesrepublicofliberland5606]

Thought this was a Spanish comment and you were saying Cabrón

[@Kserks96]

Matsimus is a Soviet spy confirmed

[@katey1dog]

NYET!!!

[@dodger5520]

Da. 👍👍

[@brentwhite7150]

Blyat

[@CrazyIvan2142]

Suka our agent compromised !

[@ЕвгенийПрокофьев-у9в]

Он не шпион, товарищ.

[@Wolf-zk8ey]

Ah the glorious soviet tonk that birthed composite armor into existence.

[@ARC-Driver]

Da

[@christians.597]

in wider use yes but the real first was the siliceous cored armor in T95

[@calvincalvinify]

Did the communists actually invent composite first?

[@ARC-Driver]

@@calvincalvinify Well yes, but actually no. They were the first to put an effective composite armor scheme onto a production tank

[@christians.597]

@@ARC-Driver answer is simply no because he asked about inventing. so invent: USA , production: USSR

[@herbertkeithmiller]

Hey Matt I'm really enjoying the increased tempo of AFV related videos you're putting out during this covid 19 quarantine. I work as a security guard and I'm doing extra coverage and a closed High School and your videos help keep me entertained and informed in between my rounds. Thank you.

[@defencebangladesh4068]

yeah... he's awesome

[@robert.m6755]

@Ra Him I think that the word "in" was autocorrected to "and".

[@Fidims]

The author is right. Much depends on the classification of the crew. At competitions "Strong Europe tank challenge 2017", the Ukrainian team used the T-64BV and took the penultimate place, defeating the Polish team that used the Leo2A5, although the Ukrainian tank is worse.

[@thermalvision203]

I'm pretty sure that Ukraine has used hundreds of T-64s in the Donbas War, which means that the T-64 has in fact seen combat.

[@victorsirota7125]

Yes , 100%

[@harbringerf9416]

Ahh the elite tank of the period. One of my favorite Soviet tanks just because of the smart packaging. Superior to the t72 in many ways and better by far than the M60. The ideological successor to the t80 and t14. Good stuff :) .

[@thomasbertelsen4486]

The M-60 actually defeated these in the Gulf War.

[@thomasbertelsen4486]

I was wrong. Such a mix of stuff.

[@saint_alucardwarthunder759]

@@thomasbertelsen4486 it defeated debuffed T-72s, which had worse armor than soviet-origin T-72A without air support, with awful shells and crews.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

Superior to T-72 in many ways, except coast, reliability and survivability

[@harbringerf9416]

@@deptusmechanikus7362 Actually it was about equal in survivability as it received upgrades. It could actually find and engage targets at night which early T72 models couldn't. Yea it was more expensive but you got a small silhouette and extra features. It also was faster to load and fire. It shouldn't be compared to the T72 though.