Talk:T-64

Main battle tank
I've changed the description of the T-64 as a "medium tank" to a "main battle tank", as that fits the tank better. "Medium tank" is more of a historical term than something that is used for modern tanks, as the distinction between heavy and medium tanks has all but disappeared.

--Martin Wisse 21:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly recall seeing footage of T-64s in action during the early 1990s in the Nagorno-Karabagh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Is there any objection if I add that information to the T-64's service life?--MarshallBagramyan 19:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, but I'd feel more comfortable if we had a reference to support this. —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 20:42 Z 

EDIT*

I found the video, if you wish, I can send it to you and you can watch it for yourself and judge if those tanks truly are T-64s. --MarshallBagramyan 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Armour
Surely someone has to know what kind of armour it uses. T-64s have probably been captured at one time or another and taken apart to analyze a better way to defeat them, right? I thought, though I am not sure, that Saddam used T-64s during Desert Storm, when surely at least one was taken for analyzation. I'd also think the US isn't that prone to sharing data they've found out though. PirateMonkey 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The T-64 use composite armor made of high quality steal and ceramic plates as stated in the article. It has a thickness of 200mm but is as efficient 600mm of homogenous steal armor. Secondly, the T-64 was never used by Saddam because the T-64 was not exported. The iraqians used a old version of the T-72 which was a kind of simplified T-64 (although it was not the same design bureau and factory that built it. The T-64 is designed by the ukrainian Morozov design bureau (the creator of the T-34), but the T-72 is designed by the Ural tank factory diriged by L. Kartsev. --Kovlovsky 01:04, 04 june 2006

Reason for its creation?
I find myself wondering why the Soviet military wanted two separate and distinct tank designs, both with 125mm smoothbore guns, both with advanced composite armor, both with advanced diesel powerplants, both built with the most advanced night vision equipment and electro-optical target acquisition and fire control equipment available at the time (and both continuously retrofitted with improved versions as time went on), both seemingly for the identical role (MBT), yet sharing almost no parts in common and surely increasing the expense of maintaining two equivalent but far from identical designs in service simultaneously.

What was the reasoning behind this? It is as if the US military had decided in the late 1970s that it would not be satisfied with anything less than purchasing both the M1 Abrams and the MBT-70 simultaneously, with all the budgetary and logistical problems this would have imposed. In the 1950s the US military went through four roughly similar tank designs in rapid succession--the M26, M46, M47, and M48 all had very similar armor protection and all around performance, and all had equivalent 90mm armament, but as far as I know they were produced sequentially and each newer design was considered an improvement. As far as I know they were not produced simultaneously. Why did the Soviets manufacture the T64 and T72 simultaneously?


 * A mix of issues, mostly. There's politics, which you can read in the newly attached "Why Three Tanks" link. Then there is the high/low design paradigm, and besides, it introduces competitive pressure (good). It isn't so bad for the Soviets, because they build so many tanks, and the production type is segregated by factory, so they might not have lost all that much efficiency due to loss of economies of scale. Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict, you beat me to it, but I'm just going to paste what I had typed already]


 * Note that the two tanks are not identical, and were not developed simultaneously. The T-64 was developed first over a very long period, at the Ukrainian Morozov bureau, as a high-tech successor to the T-54, pioneering the autoloader, gun-launcher, superior fire control, composite armour, and possibly reactive armour.  It was considered more sophisticated technology, and it and its further development, the T-80 initially produced with a gas turbine engine, were never exported by the Soviet Union.  Meanwhile, Uralvagonzavod took over T-54 development and upgraded it for the nuclear battlefield as the T-55, and later created the T-72, incorporating many similar features from the T-64.  Low-tech versions of the T-72 replaced the T-54/55 as the main Soviet export tank.


 * I don't think there is a single clearly-defined reason it went this way, but in the USSR many factors could have been important: politics, internal competitiveness, secrecy and disinformation, decentralization of military manufacturing, etc. The two tank lines could have been a continuation of the same philosophy that had previously employed medium tanks in most units and heavy tanks in independent tank units for exploiting breakthroughs, the heavies being replaced with higher-tech MBTs (this seems to be implied in some literature, but I've never read it stated explicitly).  It could also have been a way to keep several major tank design shops and production facilities at the top of their game, letting them have very long design cycles while still producing new models by leap-frogging their releases every few years.  Have a look at the Sewell reference for some insight, including the table showing the dates and places of production of the different models. —Michael Z. 2006-09-07 00:32 Z 


 * I heard that the reason for both the T-64 and T-72 was because the T-64 was mechanically complex, making it somewhat unsuitable as an export tank due to maintenance issues (requires more parts and more thorough checks), and the T-72 was designed to be a simpler (but not necessarily cheaper) tank that could be exported, in addition to providing balance in the soviet arsenal. it also served as internal competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.189.189 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

History of Soviet tanks/armour
[that is a good question above: it prompted some discussion which I've moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force —Michael Z. 2006-09-07 02:03 Z ]

Minor corrections
My appologies if I didn't follow the rules since I'm new in the Wikipedia community. I think I can say that I have a good knowledge about Soviet armour and a well-equiped library. I noticed that some articles are based on older, Western books and therefore I added some new info or corrected the mistakes. I also took the liberty to make corrections to terms that are not English (cv instead of hp for instance) and the Russian words were put in "Latin" according to the English phonetic rules.

dendirrek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendirrek (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

smoothbore
russian tanks doesnt have smoothbore gun.all guns rifled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.37.201 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, they have smoothbores to allow gun launched missile use. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The Soviet 76mm, 85mm, and 100mm tank guns were all rifled.  The Soviet 115mm tank gun was the first smoothbore tank gun, and the current Russian/Ukrainian/Chinese 125mm is also a smoothbore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Many inconsistencies
As it stands, this article is a shambles. It contains numerous statements that contradict each other, and numerous ones that contradict other articles. For instance:


 * It opens with the statement that development was started in response to the Chieftain. The the next section states that development of Project 430 started in 1951. The Chieftain started in 1956, so clearly one or both of the statements in this article is wrong.
 * It is stated that both the 115 and 125 mm guns were the first to use an autoloader. Clearly one, or both, of those statements is false.
 * It states that K Combination is a layering of steel and aluminum, later replaced with fibreglass. The article Combination K states it is steel, fibreglass and ceramic.

Much of the rest is difficult to follow as it appears to have been adapted from several different sources without much editing to make the text flow. I would be happy to fix all of these problems if someone can send me the appropriate references.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason the article is a shambles is that most of it is unsourced. The structure is mostly good.  If you want to try rewriting it, I suggest that you rewrite section by section, citing it fact by fact.  A very good source to use for this would be Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to Present, by David R. Markov, Steven J. Zaloga Andrew W. Hull, published in 1999.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may also want to look at the series of webpages by the Kharkov Tank Design Bureau.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the point (armour remains capable of stopping modern rounds) in "Capabilities and Limitations" paragraph, becaulse t-64 armour is simular to T-72/T-72A armour. T-72B armour is even stronger, than t-64.--GGGunrunner (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Armour specifications
The armour is listed as being 20–450 mm. Can we get a reference for this/ can someone please let me know where they pulled this information from? I've found varying figures on other websites. Freikorp (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

According to domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965 this is the armor profile Pharoahjared (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia portal
Who put this article to Russia portal? It must be in Ukraine portal. Russia have nothing common with T-64, they could not serve them so put all of their T-64 for scrap. ``Shuhister``

Why does T-62A link to the section T-64A?
Why does it? They are both unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoahjared (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmbulatmbt/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsukroboronprom-signs-foreign-economic-contract-for-t-64-tanks-4178490
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the description of "Super Dolly Parton?"
There was a description on this page, do I have to put a new one down and cite my tank book myself? It's been brought up in every book or thing I read on the T-64, but there is nothing I can find here.

Also, what happened to the section on the T-64BV? Why does the versions after get a few lines, but not the T-64BV? 68.3.68.53 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

T-64BM Bulat over-weight & under-powered?
Several fringe media sources have reported that the Deputy Commander of the Land Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Yuri Tolokny, has stated that the T-64BM Bulat is over-weight and under-powered, and has been assigned to Ukraine's reserves, and that the T-64BM has been replaced with the earlier T-64. Santamoly (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Perrett as a source
Perrett (1987) seems to be a very outdated Cold War era source with some major oft-repeated myths like the limbs fed into autoloaders. Perhaps it should not be considered reliable as a source, and something more modern should be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:5439:841:B1A4:EBF5:236D:92F1 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

== In the first years of development the tank was invulnerable (firing in the forehead more than 0.5 km (Gun Royal Ordnance L7)). Opponents of the tank can be destroyed by shooting at the forehead from a distance of 1.5-2km. ==

According to Russian sources. T-64. For the first time in the world (1968). It has autoloader with a choice of shells. Armor received composite additives, previously all tanks had only metal. The first main tank (all subsequent tanks began to do the same). Missile weapons (1976).

More than 1100 T-64 tanks were produced between 1964 and 1968, it was Object | 432 (the tank was not officially adopted, and almost repeats the T-64). The combat rate of fire reached 10 rounds per minute (the previous tanks had an effective fire ~ 4). The tank could swim (floats were very easily removed after swimming, for previously installed). In the first years of development the tank was invulnerable (firing in the forehead more than 0.5 km (Gun Royal Ordnance L7)). Opponents of the tank can be destroyed by shooting at the forehead from a distance of 1.5-2km. Turret almost all closed reactive protection (forehead and sides), the case is closed on the sides of the forehead (>60%). In the early 70's, heat ammunition can not penetrate reactive protection in most cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.84 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

French text of unknown origin
There was a very long french text (as HTML comment) of unknown origin (french wikipedia per chance?) from 2005 !!!, which I removed just now and put here, if someone wants to translate it: Tony Mach (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Le char reprenait la silhouette générale du T-55, basse avec une tourelle hémisphérique au centre du châssis. Le train de roulement était complètement différent : il comprenait six petites roues de route régulièrement espacées et quatre galets de retour, le barbotin était à l'arrière, et la roue tendeuse à l'avant. Des amortisseurs équipaient de chaque côté la première et la dernière roue.

Le conducteur prenait place dans un étroit habitacle à l'avant, par une écoutille, avec trois épiscopes. Situé juste en dessous de la base du canon, il était flanqué par deux grands réservoirs de carburant. Sur le glacis, une lame brise-lames et deux phares. Une lame rétractable, servant au char à preparer des positions de tir sans l'aide des troupes du génie, occupait la partie basse de l'avant caisse.

Au milieu, uns grande tourelle très arrondie, biplace : le chef de char à droite, le tireur à gauche, chacun avec son écoutille. Sur la partie supérieure avant de la tourelle apparaît une protubérance sur toute la longueur abritant le viseur principal TPDB-43 et son télémètre optique à coïncidence. Le chef de char dispose de deux petits projecteurs orientables, dont un à infrarouge OU-3GK pour le tir de nuit et d'un périscope TKN-3 lui permettant une observation sur tout l'azimuth. Devant, la trappe du tireur, le périscope de tir de nuit, TPN-1-432. Sur l'arrière de la tourelle, une petite trappe avec un volet qui sert à l'éjection de la douille de l'obus tiré et sur chacun des côtés de la tourelle, une main courante.

À l'intérieur, le canon D-68 surplombe le carrousel de l'automate de chargement 6EZ10, qui couvre le fond du puit de tourelle. À sa gauche est placée une mitrailleuse PKT de calibre 7,62 mm, le tout étant pointé et stabilisé par le système hydraulique 2A18 « Siren ».

Le compartiment moteur est séparé par un grand réservoir, il abrite sous la grille du sytème de refroidissement le moteur 5TDF et ses deux boîtes de vitesses latérales à sept rapports entraînant chacune son barbotin. Les trois réservoirs internes ont une contenance de 730 litres, s'y ajoutent des petits reservoirs intégrés tout long des deux gardes boues, d'une capacité de 140 l, auquels peuvent être ajoints deux grand bidons cylindriques largables contenant chacun 200 l. Ces 1270 l de diesel offrent au char une autonomie de 700 km. Comme tous les chars soviêtiques depuis le T-55, il est possible de produire un écran de fumée, en injectant du diesel directement dans le pot d'échappement. En opérations, le char embarquait deux schnorkels rangés sur la grille du moteur, lui permettant le franchissement de fleuve à une profondeur de 5 mètres."

T-72B3 vs T-64BV
I deleted the statement about T-64BV being superior to Russian T-72B3: "Russian defense reporter and expert Alexey Khlopotov claims the tank is superior to the Russian upgraded T-72B3 due to above-mentioned devices" The source of this claim is an article from UNIAN website, which reports a Defence Blog article, which in turn reports to Khlopotov's original post on yandex. I read the Russian expert's post and he never claims that the T-64BV is superior to T-72B3. Hence, UNIAN reported a fake news, which should have no space on Wikipedia. Link to Khlopotov's article on T-64BV: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/gurkhan/tankist-vsu-rasskazal-o-svoem-tanke-t64bv-obr2017-goda-5c64372b84e0ea00aebfadf9?fbclid=IwAR1VsOrZd_n5wk4FJwHRfdAnWzx5sK0_fuaH5nat4NY8xY7QwfpDq9-Jr5k

2001:B07:A9A:58DF:4521:DF92:2B30:1FE5 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

T-64 used by Africa?
Are there T-64s used by DRC in Kamwina Nsapu rebellion? DerpGunKV2 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

T-64 still in Russian use and part of force that invaded Ukraine
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Link contains two T-64BVs with Russian markings in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higold123 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The url you have provided, is a self published source WP:SPS, likely a blog made by someone. Its not a reliable source so it will not be considered in the article, look for a trusted and reliable source.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are kidding, right? [Oryx (website)] is the most reputable open-source intelligence service of combat losses in the Ukraine there is. BP OMowe (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Every item listed has included picture evidence. 46.208.194.232 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Oryx, or Oryxspioenkop, is a Dutch open-source intelligence (OSINT) defence analysis website" How exactly is this a blog again? --2600:8800:4782:7900:B45E:34DA:3B5:D98E (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oryx isn't accurate. they frequently misidentify tanks, even confusing the T-64 and T-72. as well as the fact you simply cannot identify a charred pile of metal as any specific tank or which country it belonged to. Yobushki (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Identification is easy if you know what to look for, and if you're personally unable to accurately identify destroyed AND captured tanks based on noticeable differences maybe you shouldn't:
 * 1) Criticize Oryx for something he does infinitely better than anyone else
 * 2) be involved at all in the article about armed fighting vehicles Hermitcrack (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's they, not he. They are a group of people. --2600:8800:4782:7900:B45E:34DA:3B5:D98E (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The person who makes that list is a single person right now, and his online handle is Oryx. He has not handed responsibility for that off to anyone else yet. Tyler00337 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Number of tanks lost
A new created account is changing the number of reported T-64 tanks lost from 300 by 2018, to 79 using a source of the year 2016. Also the outdated source he/she uses did not mention T-64, only tanks lost. For that reasons any attemp to reinstate that outdated source, will be reverted. The assumption of every Ukrainian tank is a T-64 falls in the field of Original Research, WP:OR.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would the solution using them both, stating the losses at the diffferent points of time be viable? BP OMowe (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Luna
One of the upgrades mentions that the "Luna" Infrared searchlight is removed, but nowhere in the article does it mention previous models having the searchlight? So was it present and removed or not? --2600:8800:4782:7900:B45E:34DA:3B5:D98E (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Just press ctrl-f and search "Bulat", the BM bulat is talked about separately in separate sections

Why does this article instead of talking about the tank variants in a separate variants section like a normal tank wikipedia article instead discusses models in the development section, then in the production section, and then instead of having a variants section has a "models" section that is arbitrarily split into "variants" and "modernizations"

Also what the hell is that "capabilities and limitations" section? It can't seem to decide on wheter it is talking about the T-64 in general or comparing it to the T-72 (and were is the comparison to the T-80?). And one of the sources listed in that section is a british book from 1987. And what model of T-64 to what model of T-72 is it comparing? A T-64R to a T-72 ural? A T-64BV to a T-72B? A T-64BV zr 2017 to a T-72B3? Also, why does that section currently not mention the T-64s overheating problems in comparison to the T-72? During summer that thing is a sauna D1d2d3d29 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The T-64BV text about armament needs rewording
Firstly, this is form a tank crewman of 10 years of experience - this text needs to be reworded between the "shots" and "shells" and "embedded shots" -- you have to read it like five times to make any sense of it:

"125 mm smoothbore 2A46M-1 gun (D-81TM) with carousel 6ETs40 loader, 28 shots, fire rate 8 shots per minute, 36 embedded shots (8 x 9M112M "Kobra" (NATO code "AT-8 Songster"), 28 shells)."

It should instead say this (to keep it easy to understand):

"125 mm smoothbore 2A46M-1 gun (D-81TM) with carousel 6ETs40 loader, 36 total ready rounds of ammunition (28x 125 mm gun rounds + 8x 9M112M "Kobra" ATGM (NATO code "AT-8 Songster")), with a rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute."

Or something similar. 146.86.160.101 (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)