Thanks to Armored Warfare for sponsoring this video! 💥 Start your mercenary career right now! Sign up for free 🆓 bit.ly/AW_ConeOfArc and receive the Type 59-IIA Tier 4 Premium MBT and 7 days of Premium Time directly to your account!
@ThyPeasantSlayer "stfu"? Go back to first grade and learn moral. If you still be rude than you might as well just go to prison for life, We don't need people like you.
You missed the biggest 2 flaws in the design looking from a British perspective: 1. Lack of a boiling vessel. 2. Lack of a 4th crew man to make tea and grab the biscuits for in battle refreshments.
@@hunterbg6651 Dude, in Russia, vodka is spawned, wherever and whenever the crew appeared for resupply. No need to manufacturing it inside the tank. You stick your hand outside the hatch and you already hold two bottles.
First smoothbore gun to see wide scale production. First APFSDS shell to see wide scale production. First main battle tank with composite armor. You cannot say the soviets were not inovative.
Brazil also made a tank that was claimed to have been better than the Abrams, it’s not the lack of innovation but rather budget and placement. It’s why Russian Tanks has little amount of depression while NATO tanks are about 30 seconds from blowing their brains out
' First smoothbore gun to see wide scale production ' No mate; you're wrong, the T62 gets that title; as it was the first tank to have a smoothbore gun. (115 mm U5TS)
@@rbgerald2469 Right you are. I didn't specifically said that the T64 was the first smooth bore, APFSDS firing MBT. I did not mention that the T62 was the one, because we all know it
US Army: We need to hire someone's new Germany: I think we can train someone we can both use imagine if it end we end it because it didn't work out and have two replacement instead lol
Correction: You were as likely to get a limb stuck in the T-64's autoloader as you were to get your head crushed by a recoiling breech block. There is no data on it ever happening. It's difficult to imagine a Soviet tank crew putting his hand in front of the reload mechanism. As it is CLEARLY dangerous. It's largely a "oh but it could happen", but it never actually did.
Correction: Red Army was and is to this day based on conscripts and you CLEARLY have no idea how USSR was operating if you babling here about "There is no data on it ever happening." There was also no data about all the cosmonauts that died in rocked that failed to launch but we now know that the data was simply not made public in Soviet Union. We have also no data that there was any accident with atomics weponds because again this type of data was considered secret. Chernobyl the same story...until the radioactive stuff from Chernobyl was detected in Scandinavia noone was informing people that there is a big problem and going out may be very bad idea. Russian like to say "nas mnogo"="there is plenty of us"=>saving human life in russia is not a priority... "It's difficult to imagine" that Kramatorsk radiological accident from 1989 would be posible in Germany, France or USA only in Soviet Union workers would not care at all that something so dangerous and deadly was lost and killed so many inocent people...
when middle east got their hands on soviet tanks with autoloaders it turned out you somehow can use the window of 3 seconds to get your hand loaded. but that goes with lack of proper training
@@ryszakowy Yeap. It is not problem of design, but of training - otherwise it would have been same as if someone would say "oh, an assault rifle has a design problem: if you put your hand in front of barrel, you can shoot your hand!"
Crazy how some amateur with a laptop can produce better documentaries then any major TV channel. Animalogic, Zfrank, and Scishow make better animal programs then Animal planet and this channel does better history then history channel
The T-72 was less technologically advanced because it was built as a hedge against the failure of the T-64. Instead of the new opposed piston engine, it had a regular diesel design and it only had composite armor in the front glacis (later versions had it in the turret as well). Since the T-64 succeeded, the T-72 was going to be relegated to a war economy variant; built only in case of war. But due to the high cost of the T-64, the T-72 was built at the same time and equipped most of the non-elite formations.
The T-72 was never made as a "hedge against the failure of the T-64", it was a much cheaper option to use to isolate their dependency on the currently suffering U'SSR, as this was the second worst economic time in its history. Its engine was swapped out for the same reason, as Kharkov was the only engine plant who had created the 4/5/6TD series, and it was still insanely costly for a low amount of power. Both tanks had the same turret layouts, having no composite in the turret and technically no composite in the hull, as it was a mixture of Quartz-Zinc fillings and softened glass textolite. The T-64 had not succeeded in any way, the entirety of the Ural division and Malyshev division had voted on producing the T-72 instead, as it both felt safer and was cost effective for almost the same specifications. The T-72 was relegated as the SSSRs main combat tank, not a "war economy variant", with the T-64 being the elite variant to be used in special occasions due to its superior autoloader and slightly better armor, though worse mobility and general sighting.
The T-64 also started the trend of two types of Soviet/Russian tanks. One being the 'advanced' tanks (T-64, T80, T14), and the other being the 'standard' tanks (T-62, T72, T90). Not a lot of people realise how beneficial this can be, being able to both overwhelm attackers in numbers, while also having a more advanced 'strike force' to challenge the tougher enemies.
@@Predator20357 the initial M1 and even the M1A1 were far from advanced tanks... both lacked a separate commander`s sight (thus slaved to the gunners view) had no commanders night vision and featured a round incapable of penetrating its soviet counterpart (M829 and M829A1) this was only solved with the introduction of the M1A2 and the M829A2 APFSDS introduced after the cold war... american tanks were extremely overrated at least during the cold war... right now theyve caught up to their german and russian counterparts... but both the germans and the russians are already getting their leg up aswell
I read a book about the Soviet Afghan war written by a Pakistani intelligence officer and he said that the US demonstrated the M1 Abrams tank in the early 80's to Pakistan in hopes of selling them and Pakistan said that the Abrams is too shit for them to want to buy.
They seem to be going for the WW2 American doctrine, or a variant of it. Multi purpose tanks like the T-80 and T-90 to make up the main force, and fast, well armed vehicles capable of out maneuvering the enemy to doing serious damage to enemy armor, like the BMPT and 2S25
I feel like we won't be seeing many T-14s, I imagine the T-72B3 is going to be their main tank after all they have over 7000 T-72s that are in good condition for the upgrades.
Few clarifications about T-64 1. It's hard to call the T-72 as a replacement to T-64. Main benefit of the T-72 was that it was simpler and cheaper to manufacture. Otherwise those tanks trade blows with the T-64 and later T-80 coming slightly on top. 2. Both T-64 and T-72 autoloaders are really small targets, lying low, near the ground, that are hard to hit. Differences between them in this regard are neglegable. No tanks at the time had safe ammunition storages. This novelty came with the M1 Abrams more than 15 years later. The real problem with T-64, T-72 and their later variants T-80 and T-90 is reserve ammunition that was put all over the tank, wherever it could physically fit. This is why almost every time you achive penetration the ammunition is set on fire and the turret pops off.
@@grandayatollah5655 it's not that easy to say one is better. In some aspects T-64 is better in other T-72. Also there are so many production variants and modernizations that it's hard to pick two examples to compare. Both tanks are simmilar in protection and capabilities. They were both manufactured side by side since 1960s up untill 1989. If one was clearly better then USSR wouldn't bother to manufacture T-64s past 1967.
@@elanvital9720 Thanks, Elan, my books are in boxes because of moving house, but I remember this differently. It may have been in Isby's Weapons and Tactics. Have you any sources? Thanks!
@@elanvital9720 actually the T-64 costs way more than T-72 Ural. The T-72 is an upgraded T-62 with using T-64 tech but at lower cost and can be mass-produced.
Hell yeah the T-64 I’m hyped cause it’s probably gonna be the main soviet tank when the 83 game comes out so any opportunity for more info on it is great
@@Armadilling There was no Churchill mbt. If your talking about the Churchill heavy tank from WW2, then I think you need to check your sources on that.
as much as i love this series, i think "Built for Battle" has that slight alliterative appeal that the title lacks neverthenonetheless, this video was great
isnt there only a single accident with the auto loader? the only report of safety problem i saw was with the prototype T-62 with auto loader i think it is a myth from the project MBT 70 auto loader which is loaded with safety hazard
Yeah I never head about any accidents with them, and I was in a T-72 turret (I imagine T-64 wasn't too different) and you would REALY need to go out of your way and stick your hand into the autoloader to get hurt. BMP-1 is a whole other thing tho, it's autoloader is just hellish, no wonder almost all BMPs in service have them removed
@Andreas Glad yeah just like how American always report vehicles destruction by enemy fire , cough we only suffer crash because the engine burn itself that may or may not cause by getting hit by that SAM but we will just report it carsh by accident to both public AND higher up cough.Oh and i can literally Google in less than 10s to prove thay you are full of shit so i think you should go back to Larping with the rest of your NATO shill friends , after all copium is one hell of a drug.
@Andreas Glad I would like to know how it works, you know? Like: here in USSR is a TOTALITARISM and DICTATORSHIP like everyone's watch on everyone and report, but when it comes to archives, everything MYSTERY disappears. I hope you understand: somewhere in the mid-70s, in the Soviet Union, some army generals completely don't give a FUCK about some 20's vlogger from youtube will study their failures.
A good video but the reports of the auto loader eating limbs is false for the T-64, T-72 and T-80. This was a problem with the BMP-1 autoloader that gets misattributed to the tanks.
Nope. The video is correct. Books written by former Soviet officers confirm that Soviet tank gunners lost arms to early Soviet tank autoloaders. BMP did not have an autoloader. I've been in the BMP-1. No autoloader. Dork. Lol @ yet another wannabe authority who wants to revise history.
@@skipdreadman8765 Original BMP-1 models did have an autoloader. Many BMP’s removed it because of its unreliability, which including injury to the gunner, such as the Finnish and Swedish variations. You can literally look it up. Stop being a pretentious asshole.
There will be some Indian RUclipsr that got triggered, just like when RedEffect did a video on that tank. Nonetheless, I'll prepare my popcorn if ConeofArc wanted to make that video.
I love how much attention you give to the history of the vehicle. But actually, I think tank’s side armor wasn’t that bad if we compare it to the western variants with their 38-51mm. It’s just the autoloader making it spicy if hit. On the other side, tank’s transmission was a nightmare. Not only it was jerky and hard to operate, but provided only a single reverse gear. Even if Soviets thought they wouldn’t retreat, one more gear would come in handy if ambushed
The idea that the Soviet Union political system was not the best was also a total myth until the Soviet Union colapsed. Millions of people were hospitalized in mental institutions because they got this crazy idea that there is something wrong with political system in USSR. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
It is a myth, but it is possible, however for this to happen, you must have non-trained crew, or some emergency, like gunner/commander giving medical aid to other one after penetration, basicly it can happen, but only if someone does something stupid, like comander trying to tap gunner shoulder during firing. even if the tank wouldn't have had any breach-shields it is highly un-likely.
what do you expect from an army raised by kings with the inclusion of their relatives and each who think the information he gets is not to pass to his lower ranks that may cause him to lose his Mercedes or gold bar? even after tons of petrodollar they don't even consider starting an R & D dept and still depends on backstabbing west...lol
More of a training issue than a design issue. You can actually see the same effect in the very late war Wehrmacht units, who panicked under enemy fire, even though they were in a relatively safe position/behind thick armor.
@@erloriel Even if the round was stopped, you are basically got rung by a bell while the other side didn’t meaning while you experienced a emotional event, the other side can just load another one in. So I can see why the later German crew abandoned it because they can’t keep calm when they got the equivalent of a bitch slap
@@Predator20357 The Japanese had a doctrine that each tank should be considered a fortress and that leaving your tank was abandoning your post. In the battle for Khalkhin Gol their best tankers suffered appalling casualties, remaining in damaged or broken down tanks until overrun by infantry and they lost some of their best manpower. Arguably it would have been greatly preferable to keep the crewmen alive by bailing.
A few errors here : T-64 is the last soviet medium tank , T-64A is the first MBT. ( Soviet criteria for MBT is gun 120mm or larger) There were around 900+ T-64 produced , but due to tanks problems they were all assigned to units near Kharkov where tank was manufactured. It competed against T-62B in trials , which also had autoloader and composite armor and later became T-72. T-64A has two major versions : 1969 and 1974 , 1969 has 2A26 gun which was the first designed from scratch tank smoothbore gun and had extreme problems with thermal warping of the barrel , 1974 has 2A46 which basically added a thermal sleve. 115 was based on rifled 100mm gun and had thicker barrel. T-64B1 is a T-64B without ATGM FCS due to difficulties scaling its production. The also replaced 5TD engine to 6TD over time.
I think the MBT label is less about actual official naming conventions and more about the capabilities and design, the T-55 is generally considered an MBT
Первым советским танком ОБТ стали называть Т-64А в середине 80- ых годов. До этого он был средним... Он был секретным до 1987 года. Я же служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977 гг. Привет из Georgia!
Back in the 80,s I remember British army instructors & afv threat publications claiming the T64 to be a flawed & unreliable vehicle ! I think there was a lot of misinformation & guessing going on , but always with a spin that our kit & training was better than theirs ! I Never quite believed it, both sides played the propaganda game ,I suppose Borris would have been told similar stories of how crap our kit was too !
Because it is. It cant hit a tank size target beyond 2000 metres using apfsds which was just inferior to most western apds. Hence the reason why they use gun tube luanched atgm.
AFAIK NATO did generally underestimate most of the soviet armour during the cold war, the T64 being a perfect example. It's easy to realise that now, when everything's on camera and declassified, but it wouldn't have been the case at the time. Given NATO was also generally outnumbered too, it's probably very lucky that it never went hot
@@Farmuhan lack of composite armor and general layout. It was built to fight non-state actors like Hamas, and the subsequent upgrades are also in that vein. Don’t get it twisted; it’s good at what it does, but it’s not competitive with modern MBT’s.
I like how people in the comments are shit talking about a 60 year old tank just because it doesn't perform as well as expected in a modern war.Honestly T-64 was a groundbreaking design for it's time no matter what others say.And it was also designed and manufactured in Ukraine so it's not exactly a Russian tank.
I've read ( Don't know if really true. ) that the T 64 was 3 times more expensive than the T 62 . This bothered the Military and evidently the T 62 was kept partly to increase numbers. The designer was so well connected to the party the T 64 had powerful supporters .
I have to point out an error the Cheiftain had an 120mm gun unlike the rest of the allies that could penertrate the frontal armour, however was effective at a shorter range than the T-64. This is the reason the T-64 went straight to the area which would face the British, as they had what was considered the hardest to defeat force.
The T-64 would never have gone into full scale production in the West with the problems it had. The Soviet planners figured that even with all its glaring defects, their extensive tank park of T-54s and T-55s were just so many targets for NATO gunners; and though the T-62 at least had a potent enough weapon in its 115-mm smoothbore to take on the M60, Chieftain, AMX-30, and Leopard I, it was still poorly armored for the modern battlefield. They must have figured that they could solve the problems inherent in the T-64 later, in the various divisional depots. Judging by the poor performance of the T-64's successor, the T-80, in Chechnya in the mid and late 1990s, I'd say those problems were never solved at all, and the T-64 would have proved a "lemon".. Interesting thing is, the tendency of its engine to catch fire on startup is what plagued the German Panther in WWII.
Let’s say that T64 and T72 is what sets up the standard and develop goals for the future MBTs like Abrams Leo2 etc (e.g: composite armor, thermals, active protection system etc)
Hey man! I never ask creators for content, but if you ever do a video about the Jagdpanther or late war tank destroyers, that would be super cool. Great video, I learned a lot!
I have personally sat in t64 gunners seat and it is impossible to get arm caught in autoloader. There is a huge sheild, and dangerous areas are marked with bright paint so you know not to put important things there
They didnt. Only the NA servers went under, since the mericans were salty about Obsidian being booted. The game's actually much better than WoT and WT in terms of player experience
According to Zaloga, the T64 was plagued by engine problems for years . At one point, in exasperation, defense minister Andrey Grechko threatened to have all the T64 "retired to the combat training park by August 1, 1971." The engineers persisted and the engine problems were resolved by 1972.
That’s what I call balancing out War, instead of it being unfair for all players, you now get to fight “equivalent” tanks instead! It’s sad but it’s how to keep people from dumping WT
The shorts were never intended as a replacement to any other content just as extra content when something doesn't have enough substance for a full episode.
@@ConeOfArc Which I do like the aspect of! I love all of your content tbh and have been watching since near the beginning. I just think the shorts leave me wanting for moarrrrr...these more in depth features show off what truly makes you my favorite historical content creator/historian on RUclips along side Mark, Armchair, TIK, Time ghost, etc,...
"Good day, I am Cone of Arc and I will spit out a pair of myths about the T-64 as drawbacks" Fun fact: 1) No crewman has ever gotten caught in a production variant autoloader for the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90. Ever. In 40-50 years. 2) The mechanism had extremely good reliability stats. To the point the core principles, sans the charge orientation, have remained the same.
Also the T-72 was made to be less complex. Saying the T-64 was more advanced is like saying someone making a knockoff Apple is making a inferior product. No shit, it was made to be inferior for the sake of production efficiency and ease of maintenance. Guards vs Line unit tanks basically.
@@dukenukem8381 That applies to any state's. The soviet union tended to be remarkably honest in the higher echelons because if someone lost an arm to the tank's loading mechanism the designer suffered a reputation hit. And his/her enemies would love that to happen (lotta back biting)
@@RomanianReaver Believe me soviet union is a whole different beast when it comes to personal responsibility and state cover ups. Most of ww2 soviet archives are still closed, man look it up. And that was 80 years ago.
@@dukenukem8381 Mate you're arguing we don't know this shit even though we know everything else about the tank including armor comp and its design history. How about you prove anything about the T-64's development program is still kept secret.
@@finnwade372 t-84 OPLOT BM OPLOT YATAGAN t64 BULAT t64bv 2017 t-72-AMT AZOVEZ heavy apc prototype БМПТ-64 heavy apc prototype and many more Also you should look up ZASLON active protection system , and og armatas NOTA and MOLOT tanks
Eh, what the Germans had in Barbarossa was the Panzer IV (25 tons) against Soviet T-34 tanks (26 tons), but later developed the Panther tank (45 tons) to which the Soviets responded with the T-34-85 (32 tons). Yes, the German tank is heavier, but it is also significantly better protected from the front, while the T-34s had generally uniform all-round protection. Only with the T-44 did the Soviets make a proper paradigm shift to what could be considered a "modern main battle tank", but looking at the T-44 compared to the Panther, they are quite similar in design ideas. Just that the T-44 came about a decade later, so had the benefit of better technology.
Wait a minute, wasn't the T95 MBT series (Suppose to replace the M48 to become the 2nd generation MBT) held the first Smoothbore gun? (The APFSDS part I am unsure, but if I am correct they brought it in first, unless Soviets did it first, then I'm unsure when the 1951s trial tank came from with the APFSDS). Reason why it never came into service cause the smoothbore proved inaccurate, but then again the caliber was 90mm, so it was to small to be effective, but fired the smallest MBT sabot round. Edit:T95 MBT experimental tank was from 1951-1956 if my sources are correct (Then again it's kinda hard trying to find good sources) T-62 came in at 1961 (Again if sources are correct)
Love how the modern versions with ERA looks from the Ukr's Yeah it kinda sucked in the war when used ineffectively but you'd lose tanks either way if done so LDNR only used these captured ones well because they have the security of the Russians behind them
At the time the US / UK relied on L7 105mm shooting L28A1 APDS which was completely incapable of penetrating T-64 frontal armour except weak spots such as lower plate, gun breech zone etc...
The 3 crew-member design made it so low profile and fast & maneuverable. As a rule of thumb, every crewmember adds 10 tons of armor to the tank. Also, with 100 crew trained, the Soviets could field 33 tanks, the Americans only 25 tanks. That's already an 8 tank advantage.
and...consequently, need for additional 150-250 hp to the engine. Herein is the problem: Soviets couldn't make reliable, durable, compact, piston engines > 850 hp.
The thing about the T-62 and T-64: they are not related designs. They were always directly in competition with each over, with the Kharkiv (yes, the city under siege by Russia today, and was responsible for the T-64 series) design bureau developing the Object 430 in response to the same set of requirements that led Nizhniy Tagil (responsible for T-62 and T-72) to make the object 140. Both tanks used the D-54TS (U8TS) rifled gun with more advanced fire control technology over the T-54 but were seen as not worth the advantages, thus the T-54 was given some of these advances like gun stabilization and NBC and made into the T-55. It was only until the late 50s that they desperately needed a new tank design and thus Nizhniy took the old 140’s turret, put it on a bigger T-55 hull and made the T-62A (Object 165) out of that. It was the D-54TS that led to the U5TS smoothbore through boring out the old gun. This made the Object 166, which was the T-62. Object 167 development, which gave the T-62 6 wheels over 5 and ATGM mounts, influenced the T-72 development later.
@@Kalashnikov413 thx for the reply. Can you link me sources that confirm the Bmp1 incidents? I'm not aware of any. I do know, the Fins removed the autoloaders from their 2nd hand East German Bmps tho.
Now that I think of it, it wasn't the Fins (they purchased their Bmps directly from the Soviets) but the Swedes. And anything in Swedish service must be totally safe and foolproof short of removing all weapons and explosives from the vehicle plus installing back-friendly cushioned seats and a hot link to emergency services. No good territory for Russian stuff, lol.
In a small note here. Yes the auto loader are it’s crew arms. There are numerous reports of this and yes the bmp had a variant with an auto loader but it was never mass produced. Besides this the biggest issue is that when a soviet tank reloads after firing, the gun raises. Dead give away.
11:55 min can someone pls explane me why it makes a difference in how the ammo is stored. I mean if the ammo is hit I will cook off any time, at the time where no or not any good spall protecting given to the autoloader... Where is the difference In vertical or horizontal placement in the autoloader?
it makes a difference my friend,in soviet tanks (and also British) they utilized two piece ammo,i.e the ammo was separate from the charge that propels it,so in T 64 the round is stored Horizontally,i.e it lies down,while the charge is stored perpendicular to ammo vertically,i.e it stands along side the round,hence it posses a bigger target,so you have higher chances of getting hit on the charge rather than on round and if, charge was hit,you are dead,but if you hit the round,then,the round probably wont cook of,this was fixed in T-74 and other tanks that came later by storing round vertically and charge horizontally,this made he round more exposed and charge more hidden,so lets say if a enemy Heat-fs penetrated the tank and the resulting shrapnel spread all over inside the tank and hit the round,the round wont cook of,but if there was a charge in place of it,it would have cooked of,so this makes the tank a little bit more safer,its not a big issue,as you see if a enemy round did penetrate you,you had high chances of dying with the shrapnel itself,but,most crew survived the shrapnel,and rather died from the explosion,so if explosion could be minimized,the crew safety could be improved,this is the reason why modern tanks utilize blast doors incase you are still confused Charge is the thing that explode inside of tank gun barrel,and the resulting expansion of gasses propels the Round, While the Round is the main thing that hit enemy tank
@@FactsInto thank you really much... But there is still something I don't understand. The autoloader of an T62,T64,T72 don't have any protection to it so even the spall of an apds/apfsds (KE) should be able to kill it in an indirect hit. While heat/heafs/rockets (HE) would be able to light of the autoloader also in indirect hit by blowing up the ammo through the armour. So where's the difference besides the smaller target? And does it matter that much? Are there any sources you got for me (I coundn't find anything about this)? And again thank you guy for your answers. One thing it just anyones me too much, cause too many people ask me that: There is no T74 made by Russia for my knowledge. I think you ment T72 and it's just a tipo.
@@cillersbadass7590 no problem bro,i'm happy to help :) Yes the T 74 was a typo i meant o write T 72,but while writing quickly i misstyped you know i will look for sources and if i find any i will pin them for you,personally i did not read any sources,but i know this thing because i had a teacher in my college who previously worked in Pakistan Army Armored Division,and had extensive knowledge of armors,and i as a nerd and gamer was curious about these things,so he told me about this, but still i will search on internet for sources,and if i find any ill comment them here, no bro,a indirect hit from KEP(Kinetic Energy Penetrator) round wont cause enough shrapnel to hit the Horizontally stored ammo,it can hit vertically stored ammo because it is exposed,but Horizontally stored ammo is much less exposed,and there is a slight sheet that protects it from shrapnel,so,if you have charge stored Horizontally ,it wont cook of,but if the charge is stored vertically,then even slightest of penetration and shrapnel would explode the charge, the reason why rounds don't cook of so easily is because they have plenty of safety measures put in place which prevented them from cooking of with slight explosions, i don't know if this turn out to be a big issue or not,but i assume it would have been problem enough for the soviet designers to slightly redesign the ammo rack to make this changing,so i just assume it would have been atleast some problem atleast hypothetically for the soviet designers i hope this made some clearifications for you :) i'm not an expert on this topic,as i previously mentioned,i'm just a enthusiast ,with some knowledge,i may have made some mistakes,but this is the best according to my knowledge and understanding of the topic,still i hope i was a little bit helpful :)
Wow thanks for such informative and interesting video, im a die-hard pacifist, but for some stupid reason, military gear, tanks, big guns, fighter planes, planes, submarines.. just fascinate and intrest me so much, i guess its my manly genes at play, even though im 100% against wars, but the technology and machinery just fascinates me. I wish one day we will come to a point, where countries and armies accept, super realistic simulator, with super realistic capabilities of each country and wars would be faught with no people dead, but still they would get what they "wanted" I guess its naive idealism, but otherwise i cant see the hope in humanity and we will self-destruct sooner or later, but at least in the meanwhile armor and fighter jets are so damn cool and interesting... to watch, read about and stuff.
The autoloader had an additional problem over other tanks. In order to load the gun had to be moved to a particular elevation and earlier models required the turret to be rotated to a particular position as well. This made follow up shot accuracy worse as the gunner couldn’t simply correct his aim while the gun was loaded as the gun would have to be aimed all over again.
The gun would elevate to the loading position independent of the sight, which would remain stabilised where it had been pointed. Once the loading process completed the gun would return to index with the sight and was ready to fire (this is why there is a red lamp on the gunsight, to indicate the gun is loaded, indexed, and ready to fire). Likewise, the firegating system would prevent the gun from being fired accidentally if the gunner had the sight depressed below the angle the gun was able to depress to. Worth noting: several NATO tanks also elevate their guns to a specific loading angle. In this respect the Americans are the odd ones out, I don't believe they've ever required it except in cases where the gun was already at a very awkward angle for the loader to lift the round to.
The t64, much like every single turret since the 1890s had a barell independent sight. The gunner aimed the sight, then the gun would lay onto the sight.
I used to be a former tanker I've been in a t64 t62 t55 as well as our own Abrams and M60 a3 when you say that the turret had to be in a right position like at a certain degree 12:00 1:00 etc that part is not correct the turret the bustle the auto loader all moved in a alignment with the gun barrel. We actually got to sit in the Gunner seat and go through an electronic fire of the gun we didn't use live rounds but the gun was cycled when the gun does have to tilt to a certain position to allow the piece of the shell to exit out the back door when it realigns itself as others have pointed out which it does do automatically it was not very precise you did have to reacquire your Target and adjust aim but you were close to Target and if you're interested the reason the other Western tanks that do elevate their gun during reload is to make it easier for on the loaders the m1 just has enough room where it doesn't really matter
@@universal1014 just became Amazon worker, after first week you will doubt capitalism, in a month you will be ready to sell your soul if it summons Stalin's ghost from hell to punish those enemies of the people =)
The "autoloader eating limbs" really needs to be redacted out since it's simply not true and based purely on propaganda and not actual reports from the field
Really good video. Though perhaps you could have added that the crew are probably the most important component in any weapons system. Given that 2 hastily repaired Centurions of the IDF held off over 100 T55's and T64's long enough for reinforcements (8 more Centurions) to arrive in the Golan Heights. I forget the guys name who repaired and crewed the 2 Centurions, but he took out at least 20 Syrian tanks. Despite them having better armor, guns and night vision tech, which the IDF didn't have. Yom Kippur War should you be interested in finding out more.
@@sergeontheloose Yeah it was the T62. The USSR never exported the T64 as they considered it too advanced to allow the technology out of the Soviet Union. I was trying to make the point it doesn't matter how good the tank is if the crews are badly trained in its use. As such it doesn't invalidate my point that the most important component is the crew. At least it was until the current day.
12:02-12:16 LOL 😆 *Captain Alexei:* Computer, I have sighted an enemy tank. Please give me an APDSFS round *Autoloader:* Loading HEAT-FS *Captain Alexei:* No, no, wrong shell. I said APDSFS *Autoloader:* I am sorry, user. Please select from the following options. *HEAT, ATGM, HE-Frag, (Boris') vodka, chocolate bar, diet pepsi (stolen from a vending machine), cute plushie doll (the kind you get from claw crane arcade machine), lunch box, free gulag, blackhole of doom, God, Half-Life 3, or "mystery shell"* *Captain Alexei:* What the bylat??? Where the hell did you get all this stuff from?!?!? Hhhhhrrrrrmmmm.........what is this mystery shell??? Is this "mystery shell", the APDSFS shell??? *Autoloader:* Thank you for selecting mystery shell *Captain Alexei:* Ah, FINALLY. About time...... *Autoloader:* Loading human propelled shell *Captain Alexei:* wait......wat??? :/ ***Autoloader picks up Alexei by his collar, and chucks him inside the cannon's breech block*** *Autoloader:* Firing main cannon. Have a safe trip!!!!!! ^_____^
Yah because there is so many, that’s like throwing 10 Fat Guys at someone, even if the man is swole as hell. He will get crushed by sheer mass alone. However actual WW3 will be both sides throwing grenades at each other.
The T64 seems like the elite professional Tank soldier of its era . T64 be like" I make Russia Proud during war games and Parades". The T72 was like the embarrassing conscript tank that was drunk most of the time making T64 look bad lol. T72 be " Hiccup Burp I I I KIll Capitalist PIIIGGGGS FOOR FOOR MOTHER RUSSIA and nearly pushes a bmp1 off the road ." Angry Bmp noises or crashes into a building . Then T64 just does the tank version of face palming. Lol that's just me seeing tanks as cartoon characters for the lols. I have watched too much ranzar now I just picture all the flaws and pros of tanks as character development for imaging them as a cartoon character. I know it seems kind of stupid and corny but I think its all apart of fun of learning about different individual tanks and their quirks hehe.
Crazy coming back to this video after the war in Ukraine kicked off and hearing of a vehicle having a higher chance of ammo cook off than the T-72. Thing seems designed to blow up at every opportunity.
You have one significant mistake in the vid. T-80 is not a variant of T-64 with gas turbine engine. Although this project started from "what if we put GT engine in a tank?", many problems were found in T-64 design, most of them due to the task of making a tank in 36 tons. Looking forward for T-80 video
Umm, our T-64s defeated russian more modern tank army in Chernihiv. Right now, by Oryx, russia lost more than a THOUSAND T-72s (out of ~1500 documented tank losses overall) while Ukraine lost some 200 T-64s, of course there are losses of other tanks too, like hundreds of russian T80 and now even T62 losses, and Ukraine is losing both captured and our own 72s and 80s as well.
There are videos of Russian T-64’s burning Challenger tanks as well as Leopard 1 & 2 tanks in Ukraine. Russia showcases some of them in Moscow now for anyone to see. This objective data provides good historical tank information for enthusiasts such as ourselves.
Lack of fourth crew member a disadvantage? What for - to occasionally help out carrying tracks? That is the most bogus sell for western pattern tanks - and you know it. You can hire a technician for the regiment, and they won't have to be armoured or risk their life in combat.
I love Armored Warfare been Playing since early release. I started WoT as a Closed Beta Tester and still play some there and in WOWP and WOWS. Very good presentation.
Forged for Battle my arse..... we all see now in Ukraine how "good" all the Russian tanks ( ...that we all were so worried and afraid of...) really are :-( WHAT A DISSAPOINTMENT
@@Mostima115 you're right, that's what i meant - technologically useless against the anti tank weaponry the Ukrainians got from the West !!! poor tanks, they are simply got sacrificed :-( that's what i can't get,why don't they do something to prevent all this ??
Thanks to Armored Warfare for sponsoring this video!
💥 Start your mercenary career right now! Sign up for free 🆓 bit.ly/AW_ConeOfArc and receive the Type 59-IIA Tier 4 Premium MBT and 7 days of Premium Time directly to your account!
My PC cannot run armored Warfare at more than 15 fps (minimum settings) 😕
@ThyPeasantSlayer no, my PC is shit
@@springycz837 try reducing resolution, 3d render distance and max fps
You DiDn'T mEnTiOn ThE lEoPaRd 1 BeInG A wEeLL KnOwNn MBT'S
@ThyPeasantSlayer "stfu"? Go back to first grade and learn moral. If you still be rude than you might as well just go to prison for life, We don't need people like you.
You missed the biggest 2 flaws in the design looking from a British perspective:
1. Lack of a boiling vessel.
2. Lack of a 4th crew man to make tea and grab the biscuits for in battle refreshments.
You drunk the soviets dont have tea makers in tonks.
They have vodka makers. Silly western spies you will never learn are ya.
@@hunterbg6651 lol :P
a spy
It has sandwich armor tho... Tasty.
@@hunterbg6651 Dude, in Russia, vodka is spawned, wherever and whenever the crew appeared for resupply. No need to manufacturing it inside the tank. You stick your hand outside the hatch and you already hold two bottles.
First smoothbore gun to see wide scale production.
First APFSDS shell to see wide scale production.
First main battle tank with composite armor.
You cannot say the soviets were not inovative.
Brazil also made a tank that was claimed to have been better than the Abrams, it’s not the lack of innovation but rather budget and placement. It’s why Russian Tanks has little amount of depression while NATO tanks are about 30 seconds from blowing their brains out
Also first mass produced Active protection system
Also one of the First series to have ERA
' First smoothbore gun to see wide scale production '
No mate; you're wrong, the T62 gets that title; as it was the first tank to have a smoothbore gun. (115 mm U5TS)
@@rbgerald2469 Right you are. I didn't specifically said that the T64 was the first smooth bore, APFSDS firing MBT. I did not mention that the T62 was the one, because we all know it
t-64 two plane stabilizer , much fire power, apfsds, composite
patton tank: **visibly cries*
US Army: We need to hire someone's new
Germany: I think we can train someone we can both use imagine if it end we end it because it didn't work out and have two replacement instead lol
@@USSAnimeNCC- ur long explanation makes it cringe
@@m1a1abrams3 🤣
Considering it's performance against the t-72 I think it was fine though yes it wasn't as good
@@mayonotes9849 at that time the leopard 2 didn't even exist and the leopard one is a glass Cannon
Correction: You were as likely to get a limb stuck in the T-64's autoloader as you were to get your head crushed by a recoiling breech block. There is no data on it ever happening. It's difficult to imagine a Soviet tank crew putting his hand in front of the reload mechanism. As it is CLEARLY dangerous.
It's largely a "oh but it could happen", but it never actually did.
Correction: Red Army was and is to this day based on conscripts and you CLEARLY have no idea how USSR was operating if you babling here about "There is no data on it ever happening."
There was also no data about all the cosmonauts that died in rocked that failed to launch but we now know that the data was simply not made public in Soviet Union. We have also no data that there was any accident with atomics weponds because again this type of data was considered secret.
Chernobyl the same story...until the radioactive stuff from Chernobyl was detected in Scandinavia noone was informing people that there is a big problem and going out may be very bad idea.
Russian like to say "nas mnogo"="there is plenty of us"=>saving human life in russia is not a priority...
"It's difficult to imagine" that Kramatorsk radiological accident from 1989 would be posible in Germany, France or USA only in Soviet Union workers would not care at all that something so dangerous and deadly was lost and killed so many inocent people...
Well... it did, but I don't think crews write down ever small cut on their finger
when middle east got their hands on soviet tanks with autoloaders it turned out you somehow can use the window of 3 seconds to get your hand loaded.
but that goes with lack of proper training
@@ryszakowy Yeap. It is not problem of design, but of training - otherwise it would have been same as if someone would say "oh, an assault rifle has a design problem: if you put your hand in front of barrel, you can shoot your hand!"
I also could put my dick inside the t64 engine, it could indeed. But who will know it happened?
I am loving these series' reminds me of the golden age of history channel like modern marvels or dogfights. Thank you for this.
Modern marvels was my childhood :)
* Cries in alien *
Tacoma narrows bridge disaster
@@Mr.Hun13r me to buddy
Crazy how some amateur with a laptop can produce better documentaries then any major TV channel. Animalogic, Zfrank, and Scishow make better animal programs then Animal planet and this channel does better history then history channel
The T-72 was less technologically advanced because it was built as a hedge against the failure of the T-64. Instead of the new opposed piston engine, it had a regular diesel design and it only had composite armor in the front glacis (later versions had it in the turret as well). Since the T-64 succeeded, the T-72 was going to be relegated to a war economy variant; built only in case of war. But due to the high cost of the T-64, the T-72 was built at the same time and equipped most of the non-elite formations.
This, what most ppl dont know is that the T-72 is actually a cheaper and worse version of the T-64, and it was made like that on purpose
The T-72 was never made as a "hedge against the failure of the T-64", it was a much cheaper option to use to isolate their dependency on the currently suffering U'SSR, as this was the second worst economic time in its history. Its engine was swapped out for the same reason, as Kharkov was the only engine plant who had created the 4/5/6TD series, and it was still insanely costly for a low amount of power. Both tanks had the same turret layouts, having no composite in the turret and technically no composite in the hull, as it was a mixture of Quartz-Zinc fillings and softened glass textolite. The T-64 had not succeeded in any way, the entirety of the Ural division and Malyshev division had voted on producing the T-72 instead, as it both felt safer and was cost effective for almost the same specifications. The T-72 was relegated as the SSSRs main combat tank, not a "war economy variant", with the T-64 being the elite variant to be used in special occasions due to its superior autoloader and slightly better armor, though worse mobility and general sighting.
@@Blue-nw3li I wouldn't say worse, just repurposed. Like the XM-803 to the MBT project, except better.
@@TheArcticFoxxo 🤡
@@user-zf4vy8rd3l ?
The T-64 also started the trend of two types of Soviet/Russian tanks. One being the 'advanced' tanks (T-64, T80, T14), and the other being the 'standard' tanks (T-62, T72, T90). Not a lot of people realise how beneficial this can be, being able to both overwhelm attackers in numbers, while also having a more advanced 'strike force' to challenge the tougher enemies.
The Americans however go with “Everyone gets the most advanced tank” because they got the cash to use this kind of strategy.
@@Predator20357 the initial M1 and even the M1A1 were far from advanced tanks... both lacked a separate commander`s sight (thus slaved to the gunners view) had no commanders night vision and featured a round incapable of penetrating its soviet counterpart (M829 and M829A1) this was only solved with the introduction of the M1A2 and the M829A2 APFSDS introduced after the cold war...
american tanks were extremely overrated at least during the cold war... right now theyve caught up to their german and russian counterparts... but both the germans and the russians are already getting their leg up aswell
I read a book about the Soviet Afghan war written by a Pakistani intelligence officer and he said that the US demonstrated the M1 Abrams tank in the early 80's to Pakistan in hopes of selling them and Pakistan said that the Abrams is too shit for them to want to buy.
They seem to be going for the WW2 American doctrine, or a variant of it. Multi purpose tanks like the T-80 and T-90 to make up the main force, and fast, well armed vehicles capable of out maneuvering the enemy to doing serious damage to enemy armor, like the BMPT and 2S25
I feel like we won't be seeing many T-14s, I imagine the T-72B3 is going to be their main tank after all they have over 7000 T-72s that are in good condition for the upgrades.
I like how theres a faint Hoi4 allies main theme playing in the backround near the end of the video
And in the beginning
in the beginning there's also i think the soviet march of hoi, or a commintern music.
@@marceloescobar9096 it's Great Patriotic War from HOI4 in the beginning
@@ALFA-sm2nm I didn't remember the name, just that it was from the soviets/comintern
I have heard that song so many times that i develped ptsd from hearing it
Few clarifications about T-64
1. It's hard to call the T-72 as a replacement to T-64. Main benefit of the T-72 was that it was simpler and cheaper to manufacture. Otherwise those tanks trade blows with the T-64 and later T-80 coming slightly on top.
2. Both T-64 and T-72 autoloaders are really small targets, lying low, near the ground, that are hard to hit. Differences between them in this regard are neglegable. No tanks at the time had safe ammunition storages. This novelty came with the M1 Abrams more than 15 years later. The real problem with T-64, T-72 and their later variants T-80 and T-90 is reserve ammunition that was put all over the tank, wherever it could physically fit. This is why almost every time you achive penetration the ammunition is set on fire and the turret pops off.
Not really, T-72 was better than T-64
@@grandayatollah5655 it's not that easy to say one is better. In some aspects T-64 is better in other T-72. Also there are so many production variants and modernizations that it's hard to pick two examples to compare. Both tanks are simmilar in protection and capabilities. They were both manufactured side by side since 1960s up untill 1989. If one was clearly better then USSR wouldn't bother to manufacture T-64s past 1967.
while the original models were comparable, later models are not.
@@grandayatollah5655 The original/prototype version of the T-72 wasn't, only after upgrades did it become comparable.
Amazing video!! Loved it!! 👍❤️
Matsimuuuuuuus! what’s up dude?
Hhii
Love you, Senpai!
I see you a lot in the comment section on videos of interest...
Could one argue that the cost of the T64 was its greatest weakness. Thanks for another great video!
*laughs in 13000 tanks*
i would argue the early autoloader wich isnt as save as the one found on T-72s and T-90s.
The T-64A actually costed the same as the T-72A.
@@elanvital9720 Thanks, Elan, my books are in boxes because of moving house, but I remember this differently. It may have been in Isby's Weapons and Tactics. Have you any sources? Thanks!
@@elanvital9720 actually the T-64 costs way more than T-72 Ural. The T-72 is an upgraded T-62 with using T-64 tech but at lower cost and can be mass-produced.
Hell yeah the T-64 I’m hyped cause it’s probably gonna be the main soviet tank when the 83 game comes out so any opportunity for more info on it is great
churchill mbt is way better
@@Armadilling you mean the challenger or the Chieftain?
@@bobtank6318 nope churchill mbt
@@Armadilling There was no Churchill mbt. If your talking about the Churchill heavy tank from WW2, then I think you need to check your sources on that.
@@bobtank6318 churchill mk 7 killed t64s, i’m a churchill expert
as much as i love this series, i think "Built for Battle" has that slight alliterative appeal that the title lacks
neverthenonetheless, this video was great
"Forged"is a much better title in my humble opinion..............
@@bazzakeegan2243 literally came to make the same reply
@@CARILYNF BUT, it sounds cooler
12:49 Sherman player : Wtf gajin fix balance pls
The question is how a sherman arrived at top tier?
@@maus-chanuwu1244 if the player bring Sherman alongside M60
@@Kalashnikov413 il but *W H Y* should he take a sherman at that br XD
@@maus-chanuwu1244 for fun
@@maus-chanuwu1244 realism
isnt there only a single accident with the auto loader? the only report of safety problem i saw was with the prototype T-62 with auto loader
i think it is a myth from the project MBT 70 auto loader which is loaded with safety hazard
Yeah I never head about any accidents with them, and I was in a T-72 turret (I imagine T-64 wasn't too different) and you would REALY need to go out of your way and stick your hand into the autoloader to get hurt.
BMP-1 is a whole other thing tho, it's autoloader is just hellish, no wonder almost all BMPs in service have them removed
@Andreas Glad yes, because Soviets were the only ones who ever used T series tanks...
@Andreas Glad Of course they would, it's not that the soviets don't want to improve their stuff
@Andreas Glad yeah just like how American always report vehicles destruction by enemy fire , cough we only suffer crash because the engine burn itself that may or may not cause by getting hit by that SAM but we will just report it carsh by accident to both public AND higher up cough.Oh and i can literally Google in less than 10s to prove thay you are full of shit so i think you should go back to Larping with the rest of your NATO shill friends , after all copium is one hell of a drug.
@Andreas Glad I would like to know how it works, you know? Like: here in USSR is a TOTALITARISM and DICTATORSHIP like everyone's watch on everyone and report, but when it comes to archives, everything MYSTERY disappears. I hope you understand: somewhere in the mid-70s, in the Soviet Union, some army generals completely don't give a FUCK about some 20's vlogger from youtube will study their failures.
A good video but the reports of the auto loader eating limbs is false for the T-64, T-72 and T-80. This was a problem with the BMP-1 autoloader that gets misattributed to the tanks.
Arms go Chop Chop Bmp go Nom Nom
Nope. The video is correct. Books written by former Soviet officers confirm that Soviet tank gunners lost arms to early Soviet tank autoloaders. BMP did not have an autoloader. I've been in the BMP-1. No autoloader. Dork.
Lol @ yet another wannabe authority who wants to revise history.
@@skipdreadman8765 Original BMP-1 models did have an autoloader. Many BMP’s removed it because of its unreliability, which including injury to the gunner, such as the Finnish and Swedish variations. You can literally look it up. Stop being a pretentious asshole.
@@skipdreadman8765 cite the books then u ass
@@skipdreadman8765 this comment would have been acceptable if you left the word "dork" as well as that entire last sentence out.
Do cursed by design of arjun tank pls 🙏
Edit: im asking as an indian
Wdym? It's the best tank in the world.
@@katyusha1283 so heavy it needs special transportation vehicles. I'm gonna go with cursed for this one.
@@biomancer3166 I was sarcastic about that. The best tank part should've gave it away.
@@katyusha1283 i think i met you again,Katyusha-sama
There will be some Indian RUclipsr that got triggered, just like when RedEffect did a video on that tank.
Nonetheless, I'll prepare my popcorn if ConeofArc wanted to make that video.
I love how much attention you give to the history of the vehicle. But actually, I think tank’s side armor wasn’t that bad if we compare it to the western variants with their 38-51mm. It’s just the autoloader making it spicy if hit. On the other side, tank’s transmission was a nightmare. Not only it was jerky and hard to operate, but provided only a single reverse gear. Even if Soviets thought they wouldn’t retreat, one more gear would come in handy if ambushed
to be honest if you're hit from the side anyways its 50/50 your dead in one hit anyways
For me the biggest surprise in this video was that Armored Warfare is still a thing.
Great video btw!
Could you provide a source for crewmembers getting caught in the autoloader? As far as I'm aware this is a total myth
The idea that the Soviet Union political system was not the best was also a total myth until the Soviet Union colapsed. Millions of people were hospitalized in mental institutions because they got this crazy idea that there is something wrong with political system in USSR. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
Russia isn't really known for sharing it's failures.
It is a myth, but it is possible, however for this to happen, you must have non-trained crew, or some emergency, like gunner/commander giving medical aid to other one after penetration, basicly it can happen, but only if someone does something stupid, like comander trying to tap gunner shoulder during firing. even if the tank wouldn't have had any breach-shields it is highly un-likely.
I finished my national service in 2020. Russian army, tank batallion t72. And honestly there was never such story and it never nearly happen to me.
@@MrRusskie99
i was waiting for more about obj 430 and T64! nice! i hope it will be as big as always!
>crew cannot replace knock-out number
Arab crew abandoned the tank despite it wasnt even penetrate:it doesnt change much
what do you expect from an army raised by kings with the inclusion of their relatives and each who think the information he gets is not to pass to his lower ranks that may cause him to lose his Mercedes or gold bar? even after tons of petrodollar they don't even consider starting an R & D dept and still depends on backstabbing west...lol
More of a training issue than a design issue. You can actually see the same effect in the very late war Wehrmacht units, who panicked under enemy fire, even though they were in a relatively safe position/behind thick armor.
@@erloriel Even if the round was stopped, you are basically got rung by a bell while the other side didn’t meaning while you experienced a emotional event, the other side can just load another one in. So I can see why the later German crew abandoned it because they can’t keep calm when they got the equivalent of a bitch slap
@@Predator20357 The Japanese had a doctrine that each tank should be considered a fortress and that leaving your tank was abandoning your post. In the battle for Khalkhin Gol their best tankers suffered appalling casualties, remaining in damaged or broken down tanks until overrun by infantry and they lost some of their best manpower. Arguably it would have been greatly preferable to keep the crewmen alive by bailing.
A few errors here : T-64 is the last soviet medium tank , T-64A is the first MBT. ( Soviet criteria for MBT is gun 120mm or larger) There were around 900+ T-64 produced , but due to tanks problems they were all assigned to units near Kharkov where tank was manufactured. It competed against T-62B in trials , which also had autoloader and composite armor and later became T-72. T-64A has two major versions : 1969 and 1974 , 1969 has 2A26 gun which was the first designed from scratch tank smoothbore gun and had extreme problems with thermal warping of the barrel , 1974 has 2A46 which basically added a thermal sleve. 115 was based on rifled 100mm gun and had thicker barrel. T-64B1 is a T-64B without ATGM FCS due to difficulties scaling its production. The also replaced 5TD engine to 6TD over time.
I think the MBT label is less about actual official naming conventions and more about the capabilities and design, the T-55 is generally considered an MBT
@@thewingedporpoise The T-55 is a medium.
Первым советским танком ОБТ стали называть Т-64А в середине 80- ых годов. До этого он был средним... Он был секретным до 1987 года. Я же служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977 гг. Привет из Georgia!
Back in the 80,s I remember British army instructors & afv threat publications claiming the T64 to be a flawed & unreliable vehicle ! I think there was a lot of misinformation & guessing going on , but always with a spin that our kit & training was better than theirs ! I Never quite believed it, both sides played the propaganda game ,I suppose Borris would have been told similar stories of how crap our kit was too !
To increase morale too
T-64 was used to be an unreliable tank, but those issues were later on fixed
@@Kalashnikov413 yep,I guess all tanks has to be on the field fighting first then the real deal comes into play whether it has many flaws or not
Because it is. It cant hit a tank size target beyond 2000 metres using apfsds which was just inferior to most western apds. Hence the reason why they use gun tube luanched atgm.
AFAIK NATO did generally underestimate most of the soviet armour during the cold war, the T64 being a perfect example. It's easy to realise that now, when everything's on camera and declassified, but it wouldn't have been the case at the time.
Given NATO was also generally outnumbered too, it's probably very lucky that it never went hot
Waiting Forged to Battle for Merkava
Yeah I’m really exited for that one.
It wasn’t though.
@@92HazelMocha why wasn't?
@@Farmuhan lack of composite armor and general layout. It was built to fight non-state actors like Hamas, and the subsequent upgrades are also in that vein. Don’t get it twisted; it’s good at what it does, but it’s not competitive with modern MBT’s.
YOOOO MERKAVA.... I love the Merkava
I like how people in the comments are shit talking about a 60 year old tank just because it doesn't perform as well as expected in a modern war.Honestly T-64 was a groundbreaking design for it's time no matter what others say.And it was also designed and manufactured in Ukraine so it's not exactly a Russian tank.
I've read ( Don't know if really true. ) that the T 64 was 3 times more expensive than the T 62 . This bothered the Military and evidently the T 62 was kept partly to increase numbers. The designer was so well connected to the party the T 64 had powerful supporters .
Thank you for another great video! The T-64 is one of those lesser known tanks, at least by me, so thanks again! 😀
I have to point out an error the Cheiftain had an 120mm gun unlike the rest of the allies that could penertrate the frontal armour, however was effective at a shorter range than the T-64. This is the reason the T-64 went straight to the area which would face the British, as they had what was considered the hardest to defeat force.
I love how I can see the reflection of this information in WarThunder. Heavy tanks lines ends with t10 and starts with t64, and then t80.
The T-64 would never have gone into full scale production in the West with the problems it had. The Soviet planners figured that even with all its glaring defects, their extensive tank park of T-54s and T-55s were just so many targets for NATO gunners; and though the T-62 at least had a potent enough weapon in its 115-mm smoothbore to take on the M60, Chieftain, AMX-30, and Leopard I, it was still poorly armored for the modern battlefield. They must have figured that they could solve the problems inherent in the T-64 later, in the various divisional depots.
Judging by the poor performance of the T-64's successor, the T-80, in Chechnya in the mid and late 1990s, I'd say those problems were never solved at all, and the T-64 would have proved a "lemon".. Interesting thing is, the tendency of its engine to catch fire on startup is what plagued the German Panther in WWII.
Let’s say that T64 and T72 is what sets up the standard and develop goals for the future MBTs like Abrams Leo2 etc (e.g: composite armor, thermals, active protection system etc)
Hey man! I never ask creators for content, but if you ever do a video about the Jagdpanther or late war tank destroyers, that would be super cool. Great video, I learned a lot!
I have personally sat in t64 gunners seat and it is impossible to get arm caught in autoloader. There is a huge sheild, and dangerous areas are marked with bright paint so you know not to put important things there
Я служил танкистом на Т-64А в Украине. 1975-1977гг. Привет из Georgia!
Holy shit, AW is still a thing?? Damn i thought they went under. Nice to have competition in the tank game industry
They didnt.
Only the NA servers went under, since the mericans were salty about Obsidian being booted.
The game's actually much better than WoT and WT in terms of player experience
@@boymahina123 fuck that dog shit Epic ass kissing company, fucking epic exclusive
They doing fuck all when they are still involved in AW, fuck all
T62 is T55 with new turret and gun on T55 hull.
T64 is totally new tank.
According to Zaloga, the T64 was plagued by engine problems for years . At one point, in exasperation, defense minister Andrey Grechko threatened to have all the T64 "retired to the combat training park by August 1, 1971." The engineers persisted and the engine problems were resolved by 1972.
There just something about that T-54/55/62/64/72/80/90 look that I just love.
Meanwhile in War Thunder:
It is anything but the most advanced because where it was designed to fight Pattons, it instead gets Abrams.
That’s what I call balancing out War, instead of it being unfair for all players, you now get to fight “equivalent” tanks instead! It’s sad but it’s how to keep people from dumping WT
It's for balancing, you smart guy
This content is what I subbed for, fantastic vid! Please limit the amount of shorts and focus on these. They are your gold!
The shorts were never intended as a replacement to any other content just as extra content when something doesn't have enough substance for a full episode.
@@ConeOfArc Which I do like the aspect of! I love all of your content tbh and have been watching since near the beginning. I just think the shorts leave me wanting for moarrrrr...these more in depth features show off what truly makes you my favorite historical content creator/historian on RUclips along side Mark, Armchair, TIK, Time ghost, etc,...
"Good day, I am Cone of Arc and I will spit out a pair of myths about the T-64 as drawbacks"
Fun fact:
1) No crewman has ever gotten caught in a production variant autoloader for the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90. Ever. In 40-50 years.
2) The mechanism had extremely good reliability stats. To the point the core principles, sans the charge orientation, have remained the same.
Also the T-72 was made to be less complex. Saying the T-64 was more advanced is like saying someone making a knockoff Apple is making a inferior product. No shit, it was made to be inferior for the sake of production efficiency and ease of maintenance. Guards vs Line unit tanks basically.
never trust any soviet info especially concerning accidents and crew looses
@@dukenukem8381
That applies to any state's. The soviet union tended to be remarkably honest in the higher echelons because if someone lost an arm to the tank's loading mechanism the designer suffered a reputation hit. And his/her enemies would love that to happen (lotta back biting)
@@RomanianReaver Believe me soviet union is a whole different beast when it comes to personal responsibility and state cover ups. Most of ww2 soviet archives are still closed, man look it up. And that was 80 years ago.
@@dukenukem8381
Mate you're arguing we don't know this shit even though we know everything else about the tank including armor comp and its design history.
How about you prove anything about the T-64's development program is still kept secret.
The father of composite armor
Btw Ukraine recently announced that they will revive 476 project and will install 6tdf engine in all of the their t64bm bulat tanks
Do you have a link to where I can read about this
@@finnwade372 mil.in.ua/uk/news/minoborony-zamovylo-12-modernizovanyh-t-64-po-programi-kedr/ its in Ukrainian but you can use auto translate
@@finnwade372 mil.in.ua/uk/news/u-harkovi-rozpochaly-vygotovlennya-zrazka-novoyi-modernizatsiyi-t-64/
@@dukenukem8381 thanks for the information. I’ve had a lot of trouble looking for information on both Soviet and Ukrainian modifications of the T-64
@@finnwade372
t-84 OPLOT
BM OPLOT
YATAGAN
t64 BULAT
t64bv 2017
t-72-AMT
AZOVEZ heavy apc prototype
БМПТ-64 heavy apc prototype
and many more
Also you should look up ZASLON active protection system , and og armatas NOTA and MOLOT tanks
Great video, Coney! You never cease to please.
“Decently armored”
*Shows a Leopard I*
Lol
Excellent analysis and information on the development of the T-64 tank. Thank you for creating, posting and sharing this video!
Ah yes, Soviet equivalent of "starship" program and MBT-70... which somehow miraculously worked out unlike those:D
Eh, what the Germans had in Barbarossa was the Panzer IV (25 tons) against Soviet T-34 tanks (26 tons), but later developed the Panther tank (45 tons) to which the Soviets responded with the T-34-85 (32 tons).
Yes, the German tank is heavier, but it is also significantly better protected from the front, while the T-34s had generally uniform all-round protection.
Only with the T-44 did the Soviets make a proper paradigm shift to what could be considered a "modern main battle tank", but looking at the T-44 compared to the Panther, they are quite similar in design ideas. Just that the T-44 came about a decade later, so had the benefit of better technology.
Main drawback - it was an expensive tank. Sure it could easily clean Pattons etc. but it was not cheap while doing so.
How would it clean Pattons if the only enemy is using T62s?
Wait a minute, wasn't the T95 MBT series (Suppose to replace the M48 to become the 2nd generation MBT) held the first Smoothbore gun? (The APFSDS part I am unsure, but if I am correct they brought it in first, unless Soviets did it first, then I'm unsure when the 1951s trial tank came from with the APFSDS).
Reason why it never came into service cause the smoothbore proved inaccurate, but then again the caliber was 90mm, so it was to small to be effective, but fired the smallest MBT sabot round.
Edit:T95 MBT experimental tank was from 1951-1956 if my sources are correct (Then again it's kinda hard trying to find good sources)
T-62 came in at 1961 (Again if sources are correct)
Just starting the engine can cause a fire! I had a car like that...
Can we say how badass that last clutch drop was at the end of the video up that test bed hill?
Love how the modern versions with ERA looks from the Ukr's
Yeah it kinda sucked in the war when used ineffectively but you'd lose tanks either way if done so
LDNR only used these captured ones well because they have the security of the Russians behind them
At the time the US / UK relied on L7 105mm shooting L28A1 APDS which was completely incapable of penetrating T-64 frontal armour except weak spots such as lower plate, gun breech zone etc...
the trio of minecràt tank number
t-16
t-32
t-64
Great video! It’s great to see Armored Warfare getting advertising efforts going!
The 3 crew-member design made it so low profile and fast & maneuverable. As a rule of thumb, every crewmember adds 10 tons of armor to the tank. Also, with 100 crew trained, the Soviets could field 33 tanks, the Americans only 25 tanks. That's already an 8 tank advantage.
and...consequently, need for additional 150-250 hp to the engine. Herein is the problem: Soviets couldn't make reliable, durable, compact, piston engines > 850 hp.
The thing about the T-62 and T-64: they are not related designs. They were always directly in competition with each over, with the Kharkiv (yes, the city under siege by Russia today, and was responsible for the T-64 series) design bureau developing the Object 430 in response to the same set of requirements that led Nizhniy Tagil (responsible for T-62 and T-72) to make the object 140. Both tanks used the D-54TS (U8TS) rifled gun with more advanced fire control technology over the T-54 but were seen as not worth the advantages, thus the T-54 was given some of these advances like gun stabilization and NBC and made into the T-55.
It was only until the late 50s that they desperately needed a new tank design and thus Nizhniy took the old 140’s turret, put it on a bigger T-55 hull and made the T-62A (Object 165) out of that. It was the D-54TS that led to the U5TS smoothbore through boring out the old gun. This made the Object 166, which was the T-62. Object 167 development, which gave the T-62 6 wheels over 5 and ATGM mounts, influenced the T-72 development later.
Waiting for an episode for the T-72 MBT :3
It was worse then the T-64 though, yeah, I don't get that either.
@@merkavamkivm3373
Except it ain't. Go read tankograd blog post for far far far better information.
@@jintsuubest9331 can you link it?
Playing it till open beta, hope we will meet in the game. Don't forget 3UBK23M-1 for T-55.
Sorry, but no Soviet tanker ever lost a limb to an autoloader. Urban legends. Proof me wrong and I will accept defeat. Good vid nonetheless.
yeah, there's no report of tank crew got injured by the autoloader, altho some did on the BMP-1
@@Kalashnikov413 thx for the reply. Can you link me sources that confirm the Bmp1 incidents? I'm not aware of any. I do know, the Fins removed the autoloaders from their 2nd hand East German Bmps tho.
@@gruenerteufelDD unfortunately, i don't have any, and i've heard this thing from Spookston
Now that I think of it, it wasn't the Fins (they purchased their Bmps directly from the Soviets) but the Swedes. And anything in Swedish service must be totally safe and foolproof short of removing all weapons and explosives from the vehicle plus installing back-friendly cushioned seats and a hot link to emergency services. No good territory for Russian stuff, lol.
In a small note here. Yes the auto loader are it’s crew arms. There are numerous reports of this and yes the bmp had a variant with an auto loader but it was never mass produced.
Besides this the biggest issue is that when a soviet tank reloads after firing, the gun raises. Dead give away.
11:55 min can someone pls explane me why it makes a difference in how the ammo is stored. I mean if the ammo is hit I will cook off any time, at the time where no or not any good spall protecting given to the autoloader...
Where is the difference In vertical or horizontal placement in the autoloader?
If it's laying down it has a smaller profile compared to standing upright
it makes a difference my friend,in soviet tanks (and also British) they utilized two piece ammo,i.e the ammo was separate from the charge that propels it,so in T 64 the round is stored Horizontally,i.e it lies down,while the charge is stored perpendicular to ammo vertically,i.e it stands along side the round,hence it posses a bigger target,so you have higher chances of getting hit on the charge rather than on round and if, charge was hit,you are dead,but if you hit the round,then,the round probably wont cook of,this was fixed in T-74 and other tanks that came later by storing round vertically and charge horizontally,this made he round more exposed and charge more hidden,so lets say if a enemy Heat-fs penetrated the tank and the resulting shrapnel spread all over inside the tank and hit the round,the round wont cook of,but if there was a charge in place of it,it would have cooked of,so this makes the tank a little bit more safer,its not a big issue,as you see if a enemy round did penetrate you,you had high chances of dying with the shrapnel itself,but,most crew survived the shrapnel,and rather died from the explosion,so if explosion could be minimized,the crew safety could be improved,this is the reason why modern tanks utilize blast doors
incase you are still confused Charge is the thing that explode inside of tank gun barrel,and the resulting expansion of gasses propels the Round,
While the Round is the main thing that hit enemy tank
@@FactsInto thank you really much...
But there is still something I don't understand.
The autoloader of an T62,T64,T72 don't have any protection to it so even the spall of an apds/apfsds (KE) should be able to kill it in an indirect hit. While heat/heafs/rockets (HE) would be able to light of the autoloader also in indirect hit by blowing up the ammo through the armour.
So where's the difference besides the smaller target?
And does it matter that much?
Are there any sources you got for me (I coundn't find anything about this)?
And again thank you guy for your answers.
One thing it just anyones me too much, cause too many people ask me that:
There is no T74 made by Russia for my knowledge. I think you ment T72 and it's just a tipo.
@@cillersbadass7590 no problem bro,i'm happy to help :)
Yes the T 74 was a typo i meant o write T 72,but while writing quickly i misstyped you know
i will look for sources and if i find any i will pin them for you,personally i did not read any sources,but i know this thing because i had a teacher in my college who previously worked in Pakistan Army Armored Division,and had extensive knowledge of armors,and i as a nerd and gamer was curious about these things,so he told me about this, but still i will search on internet for sources,and if i find any ill comment them here,
no bro,a indirect hit from KEP(Kinetic Energy Penetrator) round wont cause enough shrapnel to hit the Horizontally stored ammo,it can hit vertically stored ammo because it is exposed,but Horizontally stored ammo is much less exposed,and there is a slight sheet that protects it from shrapnel,so,if you have charge stored Horizontally ,it wont cook of,but if the charge is stored vertically,then even slightest of penetration and shrapnel would explode the charge, the reason why rounds don't cook of so easily is because they have plenty of safety measures put in place which prevented them from cooking of with slight explosions, i don't know if this turn out to be a big issue or not,but i assume it would have been problem enough for the soviet designers to slightly redesign the ammo rack to make this changing,so i just assume it would have been atleast some problem atleast hypothetically for the soviet designers
i hope this made some clearifications for you :)
i'm not an expert on this topic,as i previously mentioned,i'm just a enthusiast ,with some knowledge,i may have made some mistakes,but this is the best according to my knowledge and understanding of the topic,still i hope i was a little bit helpful :)
@@FactsInto Thank you really much!!!
Wow thanks for such informative and interesting video, im a die-hard pacifist, but for some stupid reason, military gear, tanks, big guns, fighter planes, planes, submarines.. just fascinate and intrest me so much, i guess its my manly genes at play, even though im 100% against wars, but the technology and machinery just fascinates me.
I wish one day we will come to a point, where countries and armies accept, super realistic simulator, with super realistic capabilities of each country and wars would be faught with no people dead, but still they would get what they "wanted" I guess its naive idealism, but otherwise i cant see the hope in humanity and we will self-destruct sooner or later, but at least in the meanwhile armor and fighter jets are so damn cool and interesting... to watch, read about and stuff.
The autoloader had an additional problem over other tanks. In order to load the gun had to be moved to a particular elevation and earlier models required the turret to be rotated to a particular position as well. This made follow up shot accuracy worse as the gunner couldn’t simply correct his aim while the gun was loaded as the gun would have to be aimed all over again.
The gun would elevate to the loading position independent of the sight, which would remain stabilised where it had been pointed. Once the loading process completed the gun would return to index with the sight and was ready to fire (this is why there is a red lamp on the gunsight, to indicate the gun is loaded, indexed, and ready to fire). Likewise, the firegating system would prevent the gun from being fired accidentally if the gunner had the sight depressed below the angle the gun was able to depress to.
Worth noting: several NATO tanks also elevate their guns to a specific loading angle. In this respect the Americans are the odd ones out, I don't believe they've ever required it except in cases where the gun was already at a very awkward angle for the loader to lift the round to.
The t64, much like every single turret since the 1890s had a barell independent sight.
The gunner aimed the sight, then the gun would lay onto the sight.
I used to be a former tanker I've been in a t64 t62 t55 as well as our own Abrams and M60 a3 when you say that the turret had to be in a right position like at a certain degree 12:00 1:00 etc that part is not correct the turret the bustle the auto loader all moved in a alignment with the gun barrel.
We actually got to sit in the Gunner seat and go through an electronic fire of the gun we didn't use live rounds but the gun was cycled when the gun does have to tilt to a certain position to allow the piece of the shell to exit out the back door when it realigns itself as others have pointed out which it does do automatically it was not very precise you did have to reacquire your Target and adjust aim but you were close to Target and if you're interested the reason the other Western tanks that do elevate their gun during reload is to make it easier for on the loaders the m1 just has enough room where it doesn't really matter
Yes!
Another Forged for battle episode
T-64, the tank used by the enemy but was created by the good guys.
Agreed comrade
Indeed
Soviet Union good guys? What are you smoking
@@universal1014 Oh yeah. Mordor. The one word: Mordor.
And the other side were elves from Valinor
@@universal1014 just became Amazon worker, after first week you will doubt capitalism, in a month you will be ready to sell your soul if it summons Stalin's ghost from hell to punish those enemies of the people =)
I want a T64. Awesome beast of a tank!
Wait, so WG basically put a nerfed T-64 as a tier 8 premium light tank into the game?
Amazing video as always
The "autoloader eating limbs" really needs to be redacted out since it's simply not true and based purely on propaganda and not actual reports from the field
Yeah it’s just a myth
Really good video. Though perhaps you could have added that the crew are probably the most important component in any weapons system. Given that 2 hastily repaired Centurions of the IDF held off over 100 T55's and T64's long enough for reinforcements (8 more Centurions) to arrive in the Golan Heights. I forget the guys name who repaired and crewed the 2 Centurions, but he took out at least 20 Syrian tanks. Despite them having better armor, guns and night vision tech, which the IDF didn't have. Yom Kippur War should you be interested in finding out more.
T-64 was never exported, what are you talking about? The Syrians didn't have that tank and couldn't.
@@sergeontheloose Yeah it was the T62. The USSR never exported the T64 as they considered it too advanced to allow the technology out of the Soviet Union. I was trying to make the point it doesn't matter how good the tank is if the crews are badly trained in its use. As such it doesn't invalidate my point that the most important component is the crew. At least it was until the current day.
Служил на Т-64А. В Украине. 1975-1977гг.май.
Love the use of send in tanks for the background
Say what you will, wars can catapult technology far much faster then any other time no?
Yes
Remember folks! Nothing drives human innovation than putting another man into the Holy Gates!
Will you do a video about the T-72?
Getting limbs caught in the autoloader...these old myths just refuse to die
Congrats on the 500th video
12:02-12:16 LOL 😆
*Captain Alexei:* Computer, I have sighted an enemy tank. Please give me an APDSFS round
*Autoloader:* Loading HEAT-FS
*Captain Alexei:* No, no, wrong shell. I said APDSFS
*Autoloader:* I am sorry, user. Please select from the following options.
*HEAT, ATGM, HE-Frag, (Boris') vodka, chocolate bar, diet pepsi (stolen from a vending machine), cute plushie doll (the kind you get from claw crane arcade machine), lunch box, free gulag, blackhole of doom, God, Half-Life 3, or "mystery shell"*
*Captain Alexei:* What the bylat??? Where the hell did you get all this stuff from?!?!? Hhhhhrrrrrmmmm.........what is this mystery shell??? Is this "mystery shell", the APDSFS shell???
*Autoloader:* Thank you for selecting mystery shell
*Captain Alexei:* Ah, FINALLY. About time......
*Autoloader:* Loading human propelled shell
*Captain Alexei:* wait......wat??? :/
***Autoloader picks up Alexei by his collar, and chucks him inside the cannon's breech block***
*Autoloader:* Firing main cannon. Have a safe trip!!!!!! ^_____^
What? Autoloaders don't control the guns eeeee
Awesome video dude
Has ww3 broke out in europe during the 60s .t55 t62 t64 and t10 could easily over power the m48 and centurion tanks.
yes,but it wouldn't have been worth it,i mean,the civilization would have been destroyed!!!!
Yah because there is so many, that’s like throwing 10 Fat Guys at someone, even if the man is swole as hell. He will get crushed by sheer mass alone. However actual WW3 will be both sides throwing grenades at each other.
The T64 seems like the elite professional Tank soldier of its era . T64 be like" I make Russia Proud during war games and Parades". The T72 was like the embarrassing conscript tank that was drunk most of the time making T64 look bad lol. T72 be " Hiccup Burp I I I KIll Capitalist PIIIGGGGS FOOR FOOR MOTHER RUSSIA and nearly pushes a bmp1 off the road ." Angry Bmp noises or crashes into a building .
Then T64 just does the tank version of face palming. Lol that's just me seeing tanks as cartoon characters for the lols. I have watched too much ranzar now I just picture all the flaws and pros of tanks as character development for imaging them as a cartoon character. I know it seems kind of stupid and corny but I think its all apart of fun of learning about different individual tanks and their quirks hehe.
No 105mm tank round of 1970s could penetrate T-64A/B frontal armor.
Ah shit 11 hours too early
T95: \*cries\*
yes, I recently watched a red wrench vid on the T95
Fun fact: the T-64 was never exported, which is strange for a Soviet tank.
Considering that T-64 is the most advance tank at that time is quite understandable
@Ubal_Blunt where? Czechoslovakia never had the T-64.
@Ubal_Blunt T-62.
@Ubal_Blunt You can see a T-62 with a czechoslovakian flag on the tank. There is no T-64 with a Czech flag in the video.
@Ubal_Blunt the point is you should shut up, dumbass, with your stupid comments which bring nothing new to the conversation - fun fact, my ass.
So it could penatrate a Chieftain of M60 at 3000 meters. Could it hit them is what matters. What kind of gunnery system did it have?
laser detecting and ranging.. so yeah it would hit the tanks.. lol..
Crazy coming back to this video after the war in Ukraine kicked off and hearing of a vehicle having a higher chance of ammo cook off than the T-72. Thing seems designed to blow up at every opportunity.
Yep it calls karma x difficult tech
You have one significant mistake in the vid.
T-80 is not a variant of T-64 with gas turbine engine. Although this project started from "what if we put GT engine in a tank?", many problems were found in T-64 design, most of them due to the task of making a tank in 36 tons.
Looking forward for T-80 video
Wow, Armored Warfare now there is a name I haven't heard in a while. So much potential wasted.
Game has changed a lot, picked it back up a month ago, it’s better than I remember
Somehow, even tho AW is under the radar, it's still _better_ than WoT and WT
@@boymahina123 You spittin' Fax bro.
Love the lil cursed by design plug in the intro
Who Is here after watching the T-64 get absolutely shit canned in Ukraine 😂😂😂
@Dawn Razor Those ATGMs still originate from the late Cold War period. The fact is that the Soviet Union and then Russia didn't even try to adapt.
Ukraine is the one using t-64 the most my guy
Umm, our T-64s defeated russian more modern tank army in Chernihiv. Right now, by Oryx, russia lost more than a THOUSAND T-72s (out of ~1500 documented tank losses overall) while Ukraine lost some 200 T-64s, of course there are losses of other tanks too, like hundreds of russian T80 and now even T62 losses, and Ukraine is losing both captured and our own 72s and 80s as well.
@@KasumiRINA im talking about eussian tanks
@@KasumiRINA the majority of tank destroyed were by ATGM and artillery not T-64
There are videos of Russian T-64’s burning Challenger tanks as well as Leopard 1 & 2 tanks in Ukraine. Russia showcases some of them in Moscow now for anyone to see. This objective data provides good historical tank information for enthusiasts such as ourselves.
Lol aged like milk
Not really.
in the 1960s,NLAWS and javelins never existed and ATGMS were still being experimented on.
The limb-in-the-autoloader myth has been busted. Just have a look the the actual internals of the turret.
Lack of fourth crew member a disadvantage? What for - to occasionally help out carrying tracks? That is the most bogus sell for western pattern tanks - and you know it.
You can hire a technician for the regiment, and they won't have to be armoured or risk their life in combat.
I love Armored Warfare been Playing since early release. I started WoT as a Closed Beta Tester and still play some there and in WOWP and WOWS. Very good presentation.
Forged for Battle my arse..... we all see now in Ukraine how "good" all the Russian tanks ( ...that we all were so worried and afraid of...) really are :-( WHAT A DISSAPOINTMENT
@@Mostima115 you're right, that's what i meant - technologically useless against the anti tank weaponry the Ukrainians got from the West !!! poor tanks, they are simply got sacrificed :-( that's what i can't get,why don't they do something to prevent all this ??
Russia doesn't use these tanks, Ukraine does.
1:42 the interphone probably sounded something like "Oh, s**t! Block the damn elevation!"