"T-64 in Russian Service" Topic

Hello,
Is the T-64 in storage or in reserve with the mobilization units? Also, why is it in these units. The T-62 was used in the Russian Georgian War in 08. The T-64 was the front line Group of Soviet Forces in Germany till T-80, how does in a way T-62 succeeds it?
Thanks for the help,
-Jim

The T64 was phased out in favor of the T80 line and the T72/90. After the big draw down in the early 90s there was just no need for the T64. T62s are still used by Naval and security forces. They are cheap and very easy to maintain.

Joe Collins

Georgian War and other Soviet action often used reserve units not equipped with newer tanks. Soviet training doctrine also uses older tanks for training. Limited time for assembly of the Soviet forces could result in use of training tanks rather than pull stored tanks.

I thought some of the T62 used in Georgia were manned by units that had served in the Chechen conflict?

One presumes that there is something about the T-64 that makes it high-maintenance, or that it has some deficiency unknown to the West.
-Kle.

Could be, or maybe it was just too expensive to produce.

I seem to recall the T-64 being rated better than some of the later T-72 and T-80 models. Not really sure why.

It always seemed more logical to me that the later variants would be better, but apparently that is not always the case.

I also seem to recall that at least one variant of the T-64 may be able to launch ATGM's from its gun barrel, but not 100% sure about that. There was a lot of speculation about Russian armor capabilities back in the time of the Cold War.

Perhaps it suffered the same issues as the M60A2's and M-551's gun did, e.g. a lot of material left in the gun barrel after a missile launch, requiring cleaning, before it could be fired a second time.

T64s aren't better than late model T72s or T80s…
Though the late model T64BV did feature a thicker hull that was on par with the T80… the turret lacked the steel mass of the T80BV. I'm also pretty sure that even the very late model T64BVs never changed the turret insert of corundum spheres to plastic cylinders like the T80Bvs.

The T72b was a different beast in both the turret and hull. It was much cheaper and actually more effective.

Russia really wanted to simplify its tank army after the fall of the SU. The fight was between the T80 and the T72.
The T62s won the default cheap tank line by default. It looks as if the T72/T90 has won the premium tank fight.

The T64b was the first Sov tank to feature the AT8 missile.

Later missiles were added to both the T80 and T72 lines. There is even a tube launched missile for the T55 and T62. Though they have never been deployed to my knowledge.

Joe Collins

T64 is a Ukrainian tank, that in large measure explains why in the 1990s Russia phased it out.

Just from Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T64 but it seems that the Ukrainians still run them and Russia has some thousands in sheds somewhere

Transnistria- T-64BVs were used in small numbers by the Dnestr Separatists.
Russia – Around 100 are in reserve and 4,000 are probably in storage.[12]
Ukraine – 2,345 were in service as of 1995, 2,277 as of 2000 and 2,215 as of 2005.[13] Currently 2,281 are in service and most are modernized.
Uzbekistan – 100 were in service as of 2000 and 2005.[14]

Tango 2 3 Ditto!

The T-64 would, of course, be classified as Soviet, simply because the Ukraine, in the 1980's, was still part of the Soviet Union at that time.

Timbo W -

I'm currently designing a combined arms game focusing on the tank, spanning WW2 to Present. You seem to know very specific information. My question is: where might I find the most accurate data available today regarding "armor thicknesses" of Russian tanks, T-72's, T-64's, T-80's, and T-90's, insofar as they can best be known or "guesstimated"??? I realize this is classified information and I'm open to extrapolating the best information available . . .

Thanks, in advance . . .

- Tibor I.

If you can brave google translator on this site, you'll at least will know a bit about T-72, T-80 and T-90, with some specs for T-90. There's an estimate of real thickness and effective thickness that is taking into account reactive armor.
link

don't click any ads there just in case ;)

this page has T-72 data:

link

and this has data for T-64 and other interesting stuff…but you'll need google translate again
link

Hi Tibor,

sorry missed your post in September,

I'm really no expert, just what I've picked up on the net and no idea how closely or otherwise they correspond to reality. There was a very good list up on tripod which has now disappeared, but I think this is it archived on the Wayback Machine link

Cheers,Tim

I have always wondered what is the real problem with the T-64. The Soviet/Russian economy needs foreign money and since WW2, they have sold or tried to sell every tank design except the T-64. Why not? It was a significant threat when it was fielded, but then withdrawn from active service pretty quickly. From looking at photos of some catastrophic kills in the Ukraine, I suspect the Soviets knew the armor is no where near as good as once thought.

Cold steel it is very expensive to make and you can get the same combat effectivness from a t-72 for half the price.

Not to mention that the factory is in the Ukraine, not in Russia.

T64 is actually a really, really good tank, but pricey. The T64 was intended to be a high-quality vehicle for elite units, while the T72 was the replacement for the T55/T62 family in mass production, much like the F15/F16 high/low concept.

Personally, I'd rather have a late-production T64BV, -U, or -BM2 than a T80, due to the diesel engine instead of the T80's turbine. Great power but the T80 will pass anything except for a gas station!

Posted from phone, stupid auto correct.
I meant to Say T-64 to cold steel.
Making T-64 is very expensive, it uses more expensive alloys in much larger quantaties.
Once T-72 was retrofitted with proper firecontrol system like a t-64 it was just as effective for a MUCH smaller price and required less maintenance.

T-64 had a very complex 2 stroke opposed piston disel engine and a difficult to maintain suspension, where a T-72 was powered by a ww2 T-34 tank engine upgraded and evolved, you could fix the damn thing with a crow bar and a hammer.

There is also the other issue that the T-55/T-62 had a much more robust suspension system than the T-64/72/80. That was the reason the Soviets switched over in Afghanistan.