Talk:T-64

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Main battle tank

message: 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)
thread_title:  Armour 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor corrections 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, they have smoothbores to allow gun launched missile use. (Hohum @) 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  smoothbore 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Many inconsistencies  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Armour specifications 

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

message: 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 \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsukroboronprom-signs-foreign-economic-contract-for-t-64-tanks-4178490
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
thread_title: What happened to the description of "Super Dolly Parton?"

message: 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)
thread_title:  T-64BM Bulat over-weight & under-powered? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perrett as a source 

message: 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). https://topwar.ru/30785-avtomaty-zaryazhaniya-tankovyh-orudiy.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGzIoaiFpvMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ws3gI0o1khttp://tvzvezda.ru/schedule/filmsonline/content/201103011813-dn24.htm/
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.Бронирование современных отечественных танков. ‒ В ст. М.В. Павлов, И.В. Павлов «Отечественные бронированные машины 1945-1965». Техника и Вооружение 2009, №3.http://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.84 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  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. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  French text of unknown origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  T-72B3 vs T-64BV 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of tanks lost 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luna 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The T-64BV text about armament needs rewording