Jump to content

T-64 (Object 432): The OG T-64


GoddePro
 Share

Should we get the OG T-64?  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. How Should this world-changing MBT be added to the game?

    • Tech Tree
      75
    • Premium
      12
    • Event Vehicle
      14
    • No (comment why)
      2
  2. 2. If so, what br?

    • 8.3
      25
    • 8.7
      60
    • 9.0
      15
    • I said no
      3


T-64 Front and Rear Profiles

Spoiler

t-64_0.jpg

latest?cb=20151223212612

1363542536_3.jpg

 

Development History

Spoiler

Long before the T-64A and B we all know and love, there was a previous T-64. Born out of a T-54 upgrade program, the Prototype Object 432 incorporated many groundbreaking features that had never been seen before in the east. It utilised the now infamous 5TDF opposed piston engine, which was far smaller and more compact, while providing even more hp than the T-54 or T-62.

88928d35fa.jpg

Another ground-breaking feature was the K-combination armour. This would go on to be known as composite armour. The Upper Frontal Place was composed of a layer of RHa 80mm thick and angled at 68 degrees from the vertical, a layer of STB (fibreglass) 140mm thick, and a 20mm RHa backplate. This armour was specifically designed to stop 105mm APDS rounds by wearing down the round with the RHa plate, then using the aluminium intermediate layer to slow and absorb the shrapnel and the main round (almost like a solid airbag), then the final layer of RHa to block all incoming shrapnel and expanding fibreglass. The STB plate only contributed 40mm of equivalent protection however (around 29% armour efficiency), but the total penetration protection was estimated at 450mm vs chemical rounds at its highest. A feature unique to object 432 (the original T-64) was the 45mm 'cheekbones' on either side above the UFP, angled at 78 degrees from the front. These weakspots were later eliminated by the T-64A.

image011.jpg

The turret also utilised the K-combination armour, with the turret cheeks incorporating a cast shell of RHa with an aluminium insert in the centre. 

image004.jpg

The last, and probably most famous feature of Object 432 was its autoloader system. The system was known as a MZ, which translates to "Механизмом Заряжания", or "Loading Mechanism" and removed the need for a loader, reducing the crew to 3. The system was designed to be used for a modified version the T-62's 115mm U5TS 'rapira' smoothbore gun, designated D-68. Because it had a lower calibre than the 125mm cannon, the autoloader carousel was able to fit 30 rounds, rather than 28 on the later T-64A and B. However, it functions identically to the T-64A and B's MZ autoloaders in the game. The Autoloader is quicker than the AZ system used by the T-72, since the rounds are stacked at a right angle, with the charge vertical and the round sitting horizontal. This allows the loading action to be completed for both charge and round simultaneously. 

giphy+%25281%2529.gif

The tank was also fitted with a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical protection system that was able to keep the interior of the tank free from nuclear and conventional debris and smoke at 1.5km and greater. 

 

 

Operational History

The T-64 was only intended to be a stopgap until a more modern version, the T-64A, could be produced. It entered production in 1963, but was only officially adopted into service as the T-64 in 1966. There were around 600-1300 T-64s produced before production switched to the T-64A in 1967. During this time, all standard T-64s in service were taken in and scrapped for parts. The original T-64 never saw action, and was never exported outside the USSR.

 

 

This tank should be added to war thunder because it represents a significant milestone in tank technology, being the first tank ever to enter service with composite armour. But not only did it get composite armour, this tank was leaps and bounds ahead in all three of the holy trinity of tank attributes of armour, speed, and firepower; thanks to a new opposed piston diesel engine, and an advanced autoloading system.

 

Specifications

Spoiler

object_432_t_64-78132.jpg

Length: 9.2m (main gun facing forwards)

Width: 3.415m

Height 2.17m

Weight: 34 tons

Horsepower: 700hp

Hp/Ton: 20.6

Maximum Speed: 60-75km/h

Crew: 3 (driver, commander, gunner)

Main Armament: 115 D-68 smoothbore gun

Secondary Armament: 7.62 PKMT coaxial mg

Armour:

UFP

80mm RHa plate + 140mm Fibreglass plate angled at 68 degrees to the vertical or

80mm RHa plate + 105mm Fibreglass plate + 20mm RHa angled at 68 degrees to the vertical  (uncertain)

estimated protection for type 1:

266mm vs KE

450mm vs CE (estimated)

type 2:

300mm vs KE

450mm vs CE

estimated protection: 350mm vs chemical

                                   300mm vs KE

(note: designed to block 105 and 120mm APDS at ranges over 500m. 105 APDS could pen 120mm at 60 degrees, so the RHa and Fibreglass layers would absorb all shrapnel before the round makes it to the backplate)

Side

70mm RHa plate angled at 0 degrees

Turret

Cast RHa with aluminium insert 600-550mm thickness at 20 degrees to the horizontal

made up of 120mm RHa, 280mm Aluminium, 225mm RHa

estimated protection: 450mm vs chemical

                                  400mm-350mm vs KE

Spoiler

image004.jpg

 

Extra Features:

the T-64 also incorporated fuel tanks on either side of the driver to absorb spalling

Spoiler

 

image017.jpg

Fuel tanks also provided protection to the driver from sides

 

It also used the latest soviet night intensification devices (NVD) and a coincidence rangefinder

On top of this, it featured a new and advanced NBC protection system

 

sources:

 

 

Edited by GoddePro
forgot the poll
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • ItssLuBu changed the title to T-64 (Object 432): The OG T-64
  • Senior Technical Moderator

I could get behind this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strong +1 :good:

 

Should be in the research tree at Rank 6. And then the T-64A could maybe be folded under it. So the T-64 comes first! :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Conraire said:

I could get behind this.

I was surprised at how different it was to the T-64A

It's a lot lighter and faster, with smaller calibre gun, and sacrifices a bit of armour

in turn I think it will be a fair bit more META than the T-64A. That extra bit of mobility will really go a long way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually planning on making a suggestion for this tank XD
I´ll add some more stuff i was going to use as sources:

571455370_Object432outside.thumb.jpg.a08

538326167_Object432technical.thumb.jpg.7

 

As added notes: UFP armor has the same composition as T-64A although the external geometry is slightly different, the drivers hatch has a different design.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

As added notes: UFP armor has the same composition as T-64A although the external geometry is slightly different, the drivers hatch has a different design.

actually, from the same source you got that picture, it states that the UFP is completely different to T-64A

it only used a 2-layer glacis array. Due to testing on this array, the soviets realised it wasn't effective enough at stopping rounds, and the fibreglass was prone to expanding into the crew compartment when penetrated, so they added a third layer of RHa on the end (20mm I think?), and changed the fibreglass out for aluminium, like in the turret. This along with the new 125mm 2A46 gun were the main changes the T-64A brought to the table, which added an extra 4 tons to the overall weight

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GoddePro said:

actually, from the same source you got that picture, it states that the UFP is completely different to T-64A

it only used a 2-layer glacis array. Due to testing on this array, the soviets realised it wasn't effective enough at stopping rounds, and the fibreglass was prone to expanding into the crew compartment when penetrated, so they added a third layer of RHa on the end (20mm I think?), and changed the fibreglass out for aluminium, like in the turret. This along with the new 125mm 2A46 gun were the main changes the T-64A brought to the table, which added an extra 4 tons to the overall weight

 

From what i read, it was among the changes part of Obj 432 that the 20mm backplate was added. The difference relative to T-64A was "merely" in the external arrangement and the drivers hatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

From what i read, it was among the changes part of Obj 432 that the 20mm backplate was added. The difference relative to T-64A was "merely" in the external arrangement and the drivers hatch.

they definitely changed out the fibreglass for the T-64A

but you are correct about the backplate

"After the solution of initial frontal hull design problems "Object 432" and all later produced variations, including T-72 and T-80 used same three-layer armor for a next decade"

I will update the suggestion. This will add around another 30-40mm of equivalent KE armour protection to the UFP. 

Another Issue I have discovered is pretty much all armour estimations are for T-64A, so it is difficult to find any soviet armour estimations, meaning there is no standard for which gaijin can estimate the thickness of this armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 yes pls gib Gaijin, we should get the OG version too

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GoddePro said:

they definitely changed out the fibreglass for the T-64A

but you are correct about the backplate

"After the solution of initial frontal hull design problems "Object 432" and all later produced variations, including T-72 and T-80 used same three-layer armor for a next decade"

I will update the suggestion. This will add around another 30-40mm of equivalent KE armour protection to the UFP. 

Another Issue I have discovered is pretty much all armour estimations are for T-64A, so it is difficult to find any soviet armour estimations, meaning there is no standard for which gaijin can estimate the thickness of this armour.

Most likely the protection effectiveness is the same as in Obr 1971. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Most likely the protection effectiveness is the same as in Obr 1971. 

I want to agree with you,

but at the same time, why would they add an extra 4 tons of weight to the T-64 if there was no KE armour increase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GoddePro said:

I want to agree with you,

but at the same time, why would they add an extra 4 tons of weight to the T-64 if there was no KE armour increase?

Well, they did replace a lot of aluminium in the turret for big chunk of HHA so that´s were the weight increase most likely comes from. In terms of effectiveness my guess is that they are at the same level because the change was needed to decrease the size of the turret cheeks in order to redesign the driver´s hatch, and also the initial turrets with aluminium filler had production problems that led to decreased durability against multiple KE hits (i think BTVT has a very good article on this issue), on the other hand in terms of protection requirements, only by the end of the 70s the West started to field APFSDS capable of dealing both with the UFP and turrets on contemporary Soviet MBTs. 

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a topic completely dedicated to composite armour, and its evolution

it includes information on the T-64 and T-64A

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/armor.htm

The article appears to suggest the T-64 did not have the 20mm backplate, and that it was only introduced with the T-64A in 1967. In both articles from BTVT it was not made clear whether the T-64 got the backplate or not before production started. So I guess that it can be kept in for now unless I discover another source that states conclusively one way or the other. 

However, if it did get the backplate, the thickness of the fibreglass was reduced to 105mm. So I will update the main post to include both of these options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EventAnyDamage said:

More useless cannon fodder for pay to win premiums and nords/bullpups, no thanks.

it has a 20hp/ton ratio

surely that would make some difference compared to all the lumbering soviet tanks we have to put up with at 8.3-7

This on top of the autoloader all at a lower br than its more advanced counterpart will make all the difference for its usefulness 

As for its effectiveness vs Nords/Bullpups, that is just a pointless remark. Everything is weak to nords. This is like saying 'the entire 8.0+ soviet tree is just useless cannon fodder to nord/bullpup spam'. And if that's the case, then there is no reason to be commenting on this thread at all, since this vehicle clearly isn't for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GoddePro said:

As for its effectiveness vs Nords/Bullpups, that is just a pointless remark. Everything is weak to nords. This is like saying 'the entire 8.0+ soviet tree is just useless cannon fodder to nord/bullpup spam'. And if that's the case, then there is no reason to be commenting on this thread at all, since this vehicle clearly isn't for you.

 

The USSR tree needs AA to deal with Nords/Bullpups, not another useless tank noone will play.

 

If you keep asking for garbage vehicles, Gaijin will keep adding garbage vehicles.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GoddePro said:

it has a 20hp/ton ratio

 

The Object 685 has 24HP/t and a 6 second autoloader, look how well that turned out.

15 hours ago, GoddePro said:

then there is no reason to be commenting on this thread at all

 

You can't ignore feedback just because you don't like the answer.

Edited by EventAnyDamage
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EventAnyDamage said:

The USSR tree needs AA to deal with Nords/Bullpups, not another useless tank noone will play.

If you keep asking for garbage vehicles, Gaijin will keep adding garbage vehicles.

All possible AA for this br have already been requested. It's not as if asking for a vehicle I like to be added will actually make it any more or less likely for any capable SPAA to be added. If gaijin wants to add a capable AA for USSR, they would have done it already. If they haven't, then it is intentional. This vehicle will in no way influence this decision

 

13 hours ago, EventAnyDamage said:

You can't ignore feedback just because you don't like the answer.

if you're not interested in this vehicle because it is not an AA, then what is the point of even commenting on it?

Let's say they did add the Yensei for instance? If that would change your opinion on this vehicle then your entire comment was pointless

 

Also, the AGM aircraft are all 9.0+, so there are still going to be at least half the battles where there will be no 9.0+ vehicles or no one will own a 9.0+ aircraft. After all, it is ridiculous to balance a vehicle solely based off enemy CAS. I am confounded by your answer because it really has no relevance to its overall performance. It will perform well or poorly whether or not it is CAS fodder. Because all CAS aircraft from 9.0-9.7 have at a maximum 4 AGMs. So what's even the point about whining about Bullpups and Nords when you will always have a 75% chance or greater of surviving?

 

Your feedback has no relevance to the vehicle in question, it's really only a general complaint of soviet rank VI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

A good iconic tank that revolutionized tank design.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1, tbh this should have been in the game since the beginning — remember when the T-64A was first added and it + the MBT-70 recked everything?  Why did we get the A when we could have gotten the 115mm original?

 

Plus the Object 430 [T-64 prototype] would also be fun as a premium imo as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

+1, tbh this should have been in the game since the beginning — remember when the T-64A was first added and it + the MBT-70 recked everything?  Why did we get the A when we could have gotten the 115mm original?

It's a mistake gaijin claimed they would rectify a long time ago, when they said they would add more T-64 variants

It's a pity we never got any...

I guess this is a chance for gaijin to make good on that statement, even so many years later

10 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

Plus the Object 430 [T-64 prototype] would also be fun as a premium imo as well.

Object 430 would be fun, but it is closer to the T-54/55 than it is the T-64. The overall shape is the same, but the armour and gun are far inferior, closer to that of the T-55 than the era-defining achievement that was the composite armour and autoloader of the T-64

However, it is definitely worth a suggestion at some point if I could find any reliable information on it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...