More than two thousand Russian T-64s: why they are still not in Ukraine

231
More than two thousand Russian T-64s: why they are still not in Ukraine
One of the few shots of the T-64 in Russia. Source: alejandro-8.blogspot.com

Machines with unlimited shelf life


The exact numbers of Russian and Soviet tanks, which are now in long-term storage, are not reliably known. One can only operate on the data of two or three years ago, according to which about 2,8 thousand vehicles of the T-55 series, 1,6 thousand of the T-62 series, 7,5 thousand T-72 and more than 3 thousand T- 80. Also in storage are about 2,2-2,3 thousand tanks of the T-64 series. An impressive armada, isn't it? If each tank is brought to working condition, of course.

The fate of these machines in the Russian rear is different. Machines of the T-72 and T-80 series are expected to be restored and modernized at tank repair plants. According to available information, two new armored repair plants have been deployed in Ramenskoye and Kamensk-Shakhtinsky. At the same time, the T-80BV has already been seen in Ukraine, most likely, they got there from long-term storage warehouses. characteristic story with machines of the T-62 series, some of which are already in Ukraine and even managed to acquire tower bars from roof-piercing ammunition. According to the latest data, at least eight hundred tanks are planned to be modernized at the facilities of the 103rd Armored Plant. This will take approximately three years.



Some analysts and commentators believe that the T-62 with thermal imagers and other accessories can take the place of the BMP-3. Say, and the caliber of the gun will be larger, and the protection is much more solid. But to perceive the potential of a combat vehicle solely on the basis of the thickness of the armor and the inner diameter of the gun is at least an overly simplified approach. But we'll talk about this another time. And now we will try to reveal the secret - why the T-64, an order of magnitude more advanced machines than the T-62, has not yet been put on alert. Moreover, there are much more of these tanks in storage warehouses.

What advantages will Kharkov tanks provide over the outdated T-62 series? First of all, there is no need to expand the range of artillery supplies with 115-mm shells. The T-64 has the familiar 125-mm caliber and almost complete compatibility with modern tank ammunition.

Now about the automatic loader. It is known that it was built for two reasons. The first is to reduce the crew by one member and thereby drastically reduce the reserved space. The second is to mechanize and speed up the process of reloading guns as much as possible. That is why the T-64, under any conditions, produces the standard eight rounds per minute. The predecessor has a similar rate of fire, but it directly depends on the skills and condition of the loader.

In a situation where tank units are completed with mobilized ones, the fewer requirements are placed on the crew, the better. And some arithmetic - out of twelve mobilized tankers, four crews can be assembled for the T-64, and only three for the T-62. These calculations are also valid for tanks of later series.


T-64A at one of their expositions in Russia. Source: modernforce.ru

A comparison of two decommissioned vehicles clearly indicates that it is not the T-62 that should work on the Ukrainian front, but the T-64. Another argument in favor of the Kharkov machine. The mobilized tankers one way or another came across in military service with the T-64 generation vehicles, and not with the T-62. Accordingly, skills are refreshed in memory much faster. Yes, the "sixty-two" is much simpler and breaks less often. But it is harder to manage, the ergonomics are slightly better than those of post-war vehicles, and all this together negatively affects the condition of the crew and combat effectiveness.

Let's sum up the intermediate result. It so happened that the T-64 is naturally more advanced than the T-62. The Kharkov tank has combined armor against the homogeneous one of the Nizhny Tagil one, the caliber and accuracy of the gun are higher, the tank is much more dynamic due to the high specific power - about 18 hp. s./t. against 15,4 liters. s./t. Why are Javelin visors welded on the T-62?

Where is the T-64?


We will not torment the reader and reveal the secret of the absence of the "sixty-four" in the Russian army in Ukraine. It's all about the 5TDF engine, the main curse of the T-64 of the Soviet period. This diesel engine, unique in its characteristics, was ahead of its time not only in the USSR, but also in a number of Western countries. Let's refresh our memory a bit about what the famous "suitcase" is. The motor is built according to a two-stroke scheme with counter-moving pistons and two crankshafts. The boxer motor is the opposite, in a word. The scheme was not invented in Kharkov - heavy German bombers were equipped with similar engines during the Second World War. Engineers were attracted primarily by the high liter capacity of the units and the low overall height. Tank designer Alexander Morozov and engine builder Alexei Charomsky seized on this advantage. As a result, by hook or by crook, the frankly crude T-64 tank was adopted by the Soviet Army. It's good that in Nizhny Tagil they managed to create the T-72 Ural in time, otherwise it is not known how it would all have ended.


5TDF. Source: warspot.ru

The 5TDF motor was very demanding both on the driver and on the maintenance personnel. "Suitcase" does not withstand overheating, does not start well in cold weather and is overly sensitive to dust. In addition, it is very difficult to maintain. According to these parameters, the ancient V-55V with a capacity of only 580 hp. With. will give 5TDF a hundred points ahead. It has neither a compressor, nor a turbocharger, nor other tricks (for example, ejection cooling), from which the head of the technical department was spinning. The mass appearance of the T-64 in a special operation in Ukraine will create a lot of unnecessary problems.

Firstly, few of the technicians even remember how to maintain and repair the "Kharkov miracle" - the machine has been decommissioned for many years. With the V-55V engine, the situation is different - this is a descendant of the legendary V-2. The repeatedly forced and modernized version of this diesel engine is mounted in all domestic tanks, with the exception of gas turbine ones. Therefore, the assistants have a full hand, as they say - they mastered the technique in military schools on a V-shaped diesel engine.

Secondly, for "suitcases" we need driver-mechanics in an officer's rank, no less. This is such a capricious unit even in everyday maintenance. There is a problem with spare parts that are not produced in Russia, and it is hardly possible to organize production. The storage warehouses have the necessary stock of parts and assemblies - this is required by mobilization plans, but we look at the point above about the lack of technically savvy specialists in the army. Do not arrange a hunt for deputy commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in fact. Or promptly capture the Kharkov heavy engineering plant, where they still remember how to work with "suitcases". Some commentators suggest organizing intraspecific cannibalism and forcing less healthy T-64s at the front to share spare parts with more healthy ones. The idea is good for the most extreme case, when there are no longer any reserves behind you, and all production in the country has been destroyed. Cannibalism will make it necessary to transport to the front, in addition to two or three tanks, one additional one to be "eaten up". In some cases, for each combat T-64, an incomplete donor will hide in the repair zone. In wartime, this is an unaffordable luxury.


Ukrainian tank diesel 6TD-1. Source: wikipedia.org

Naturally, the question arises - how does the Armed Forces of Ukraine fight on the descendants of the T-64? Simply because over the past thirty years they have been diligently finishing their unique diesel. And Russian tanks were mothballed. By the way, this does not mean that they are incompetent. I remember an example of how the nationalists brought in the territory of the Ilyich Iron and Steel Works T-64A, installed on a pedestal in front of the factory entrance. And even drove on it a little. That is, 5TDF is a fully functional diesel engine, but not for long and not for combat conditions. What can not be said about the later modifications 6TD-1, 5TDFM and 5TDFM-1. In these “dviguns”, Kharkov engineers corrected most of the shortcomings, although they could not surpass Russian engines in terms of reliability and unpretentiousness.

The history of the T-64 and T-62 in the application to the special operation clearly shows that a tank is a harmonious combination of all characteristics, and weak links inevitably become critical for the whole concept. The outdated T-62 is, on average, not bad in everything - in mobility, armor and firepower. This is a tank of the previous generation relative to the "sixty-four" in all respects. But as soon as the T-64 failed in one discipline, the whole structure turned out to be a house of cards. The future, as always, belongs to balanced technique.
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +34
    25 October 2022 04: 46
    Okay, let's hope the military knows better what, when, and how to do it. Although it has already been found out, and, alas, not once or twice, which is not always the case.
    1. +8
      25 October 2022 07: 40
      The main reason for the failure is seen in the shells of 115 mm caliber, or rather in their presence. And "the sheriff does not care about the problems of engines." The same V-55V engine on the T-62 is as old as mammoth tusks. With all the problems arising from a 50-60 year old engine.
      Well, the propaganda effect will be from the use of the t-64.
      1. +2
        25 October 2022 08: 44
        Quote: Civil
        The main reason for the failure is seen in the shells of 115 mm caliber, or rather in their presence.
        In general, this method of disposal seems almost ideal. And cheaper than at the factory, and for the benefit of the business.
        Quote: Civil
        The same V-55V engine on the T-62 is as old as mammoth tusks. With everyone resulting from 50-60 year old engine problems.

        Leaking oil or coolant? Gaskets, rubber seals, change, and go. And for reliability, since hell knows how many engine hours he left before conservation, it would be nice to capitalize and count engine hours from scratch. Or to stick a new motor from the T-72, most likely not much more difficult than to stick a 2106 motor into a "penny".
        1. +4
          25 October 2022 09: 01
          In general, this method of disposal seems almost ideal.

          NWO is not a war with slippers, all the best is needed here ...
          Or stick a new motor from the T-72

          The chassis will not withstand, firstly, it is not designed for the load of a more powerful engine, and secondly, age.
          However, in the absence of a stamp, we write on the closet.
          1. +5
            25 October 2022 09: 22
            Quote: Civil
            NWO is not a war with slippers, all the best is needed here ...

            The 115 mm T-62 projectile is in every way stronger than the 30 mm BMP-2 projectile, and the armor is more serious than on the BMP. This is even if they do not reinforce what was old, but it seems like it was about hanging active armor. And the BMP sews even the CPV, and the DShK into the barrel at the right angle. What is better to support the infantry, T-62 or BMP? And do not say that the main idea of ​​​​the BMP is to transport troops for armor, the infantry has long been traveling almost exclusively outside, as in the Patriotic War on thirty-fours.
            1. +4
              25 October 2022 09: 39
              Of course, there is logic in your words .. but have we run out of infantry fighting vehicles? or why the BMP was not written off - introducing instead of them - the t-62 earlier, if it is so much cooler? I think that in fact the t-62 is something like the BMP-3 .. because even the RPG-7 is on board, that the one that the other is not holding, but a decent gun is available and both are holding machine guns .. so I think that the idea in their use, such as self-propelled guns + some transport functions, in case the regular infantry fighting vehicles are out of order, since the BMP-3 (as a normal weapon next to the infantry) is not enough, and the guns of which you don’t need to call for a long time, otherwise t-62 - it just wouldn't make sense ..
              1. +2
                25 October 2022 18: 56
                . because even the RPG-7 is on board, that the one that the other is not holding,

                RPG-7 is not held on board by ANY ARMORED VEHICLES ... So let's dance from this.
                1. 0
                  25 October 2022 20: 04
                  Quote: VIK1711

                  RPG-7 is not held on board by ANY ARMORED VEHICLES ... So let's dance from this.

                  let's clarify then that the most "new" tandem warheads from RPG-7 do not hold any armor (but they are not very common) .. and the rest - with DZ 2 generations - holds the standard cumulative 7vl on the bulk of the tanks, but the t-62 with Contact-1 - which is installed during modernization - rather no than yes ..
              2. +5
                26 October 2022 02: 18
                The BMP is much more maneuverable and easier to manage (this is strongly felt on long marches). The T-62 has very difficult control, an iron tank, God forbid, fly into a hole at a speed of 30 km per hour, you will fly out. I overtook the T-62 (not a tanker) for 150 km, I almost went crazy, my finger was knocked out on my hand, I switched the speed, my legs became like a weightlifter's and he enters turns very hard.
            2. +12
              25 October 2022 15: 39
              I don’t understand why not take advantage of the Israeli experience and rivet from old tanks like T-55, T-62, or even T-64, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers like Akhzarit? Oh, how they would be useful to the infantry. Yes, and it is already possible to hang them with DZ blocks.
              1. +15
                25 October 2022 19: 53
                Everything can be done - but everything is shattered by some fantastic inertia of our military leadership.
              2. +6
                25 October 2022 22: 05
                Quote: olegff68
                I don’t understand why not take advantage of the Israeli experience and rivet from old tanks like T-55, T-62, or even T-64, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers

                I think here it’s more interesting and more rational not the Israeli one (although they showed an example), but the Kharkov example. Back in the 90s, they proposed variants of the TBTR and TBMP based on the T-55 and T-64 hulls. And they are more interesting because the hull was digested so that the stern became a "forehead" with an engine in front and a ramp in the back. It turned out wonderful demonstration cars, which never went anywhere further than prototypes (maybe this is good for us now). Such an experience \ example would suit us very well now. We have a lot of old tank hulls.
                Yes, take at least the same T-64s, which are no longer good for anything. Digest the hulls from back to front ("wedge" of the frontal armor to the aft), lengthen the new aft somewhat beyond the size (for better weight distribution and larger internal volume), build up the sides up for a comfortable landing of the landing force, cover with armored roof, put a ramp and on top LIGHT the combat module, say, from the BTR-82A ... And we get a wonderful TBTR weighing 32 - 35 tons (the T-64 suspension will immediately sob with happiness and relief, and how mobility will improve), put the engine from the old T-72 (with a capacity of 860 l \ s) of which should be full in warehouses. The capacity of the troop compartment in Kharkiv turned out to be as much as 18 people, so we must also have no less. Dynamic protection on the armor will provide even better protection for the vehicle and troops.
                All this can be done at the facilities of one of the tank repair plants, it will not require unnecessary and burdensome R&D, because everything is assembled from the elements available, which means that a lot of time will not be required to organize such work. And as a result, the army will finally receive a full-fledged, highly protected front-line TBTR.
                I don’t need TBMPs in our realities, because to support infantry and TBTRs in battle, BMPTs are best provided (BMPT-72 Terminator-2 is best - faster, cheaper, easier to maintain and operate) and of course - tanks. It is with such TBTRs that assault formations should be armed. And such TBTRs for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation need about 2000 pieces.

                If someone still wants to get a TBMP (you never know), then there is nothing easier than taking such a TBTR and installing a more powerful uninhabited combat module on it. Here is TBMP for you.
                AND DO NOT NEED ANY "Armata" T-15 and T-16 !!!
                If there are 2,5 T-64s at the storage bases, then why not make TBTRs out of them? Simple, inexpensive, from everything that is in warehouses and storage bases.
                1. 0
                  1 November 2022 07: 47
                  Commenting on your post is only to spoil :))) You should sculpt plasticine tanks with your son, pulled the match out of the tower, stuck it on the other side and drove forward again. How easy is it for you :)
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2022 12: 07
                    Quote: Slon1978
                    You should sculpt plasticine tanks with your son,

                    I'm old for such a young son. And in order to comment with an understanding of what it is about, first take an interest in the work of KhTZ in the 90s. It will be educational. Then you will understand how they turned the stern into the frontal part. And now such TBTR would be more than useful.
          2. 0
            25 October 2022 17: 27
            Hello, how then was modernization carried out in one of the republics of Central Asia? Yes, they changed the engine and it seems even an automatic loader, but this is not accurate. But the engine is for sure, I saw it on TV and there were exercises with them.
          3. 0
            25 October 2022 22: 52
            It is not necessary to drive them on LBS. There are also rear checkpoints. They put it on reinforcement - let it serve. And send other capable models to the front. All the same, checkpoints need to be strengthened and part of the equipment settles on them.
          4. +1
            26 October 2022 10: 57
            On the T-62M-1, the V-46 stands at 690 forces (I don’t remember the torque) and everything works fine, moreover, with such a T-62M engine, most of it, with the V-55 T-62M, with its weight, to put it mildly, does not shine with dynamics )
            1. 0
              27 October 2022 22: 54
              On the T-62M-1, the V-46 stands at 690 forces (I don’t remember the torque)
              That's right! good On the T-62M-1, T-62M1-1, T-62MV-1 are V-46-5M. The maximum torque of the V-46-5M engine is 275 + 25 kgf m
              The undercarriage of all M-ovsky T-62s has been modernized for greater loads and with T-72 tracks.
          5. +1
            27 October 2022 22: 37
            Or stick a new motor from the T-72

            The chassis will not withstand, firstly, it is not designed for the load of a more powerful engine, and secondly, age.
            However, in the absence of a stamp, we write on the closet.
            Dear, you apparently do not quite know! Back in the late 80s ... I had a chance to serve in a tank division (in TurkVO) for 3,5 years, which was armed with T-62M-1 (with Ilyich's eyebrows), T-62MV-1 (with dynamic protection). The battalion in which I served directly was on the T-62MV-1. So the T-62M-1 and T-62MV-1 had V-46-5M engines (the same engine from the T-72)! And the undercarriage has been modernized and "shod" in tracks from the T-72 since the beginning of the modernization, namely, starting from the T-62M! And judging by the reports with the relocation of the T-62, there is no lower T-62M. I saw a lot of T-62MV ...
          6. 0
            25 November 2022 19: 38
            Is it possible to deforce a more powerful engine?
        2. +4
          25 October 2022 18: 22
          Quote: Nagan
          In general, this method of disposal seems almost ideal. And cheaper than at the factory, and for the benefit of the business.

          Well, the fact that Russian guys will be "utilized" along with the tanks is not important. So?
          Why did Russia spend so much money on the military-industrial complex? So that when the real war began, again rely on the legacy of the "cursed scoop"?
          Where are Almaty with KAZs? Where are the "Oplots" with the same KAZs?
          It is on technological superiority that victory should be built.
          1. +8
            25 October 2022 20: 17
            And that geraniums are high-tech? Modelka as from an aviation circle and a moped engine. Technological superiority does not mean efficiency. Sometimes, of course, this happens when, say, there is a battle of obsolete tanks against more modern ones, or in the sky our aviation is against Ukrainian, but now tanks rarely fight other tanks. Technological superiority is also needed where it is needed, as well as old effective weapons.
            Let's say the Mig-21 is considered more effective than the F-22 in some ways, somewhere in Syria there is little threat to the pilot, fly throw bombs, and the F-22 either does not take off, then maintenance, then the weather is not flying, or something else. And on the Mig, you can hang some kind of Chinese radar and modern missiles, and they can also kick anything.
            The war is not a direct one, where everything should go along the path of technological production, it is rather squiggles in all directions - attempts to look for effective means. Often they return to service what they have already abandoned.
            1. -1
              26 October 2022 21: 11
              Quote from DimCorvus
              moped engine

              I read somewhere that the Geranium engine is an unlicensed Iranian copy of an unlicensed Chinese copy of the Volkswagen Zhuk engine. And it rumbles like a moped, because the Persians did not bother with a silencer. And rightly so, by the way. The apparatus is disposable, and the rattling causes the sphincters to relax approximately the same way as the sirens of the Junkers 87 dive-bombers of the Poles in 1939. True, the sirens were later removed, because they did not work on the British as they wanted, and in general they suffered such losses over England that they soon removed from there. And on the Eastern Front, it seems like the sirens did not go off.
            2. +1
              27 October 2022 10: 49
              And it was also produced MIG-21 11000things....

              If there were at least 10000 su-35s, I’m already silent about the su-57 (t50), then the alignment would be completely different.
              1. 0
                29 October 2022 20: 42
                only the cost of this su-35 in relation to the mig-21 is such that it’s good that there are a hundred,
                the Americans somehow beat the budget with mathematics, if an MIG-21 squadron takes off against any pair of them, then they will shoot down some, then they will go for minced meat.
                the cost of aircraft + pilots (for a moment it is much easier to cook), then even exchanging a squadron for a couple is not very good.
                also with the 62s, they, like the mobilized ones, are most likely to be filled at checkpoints, now it’s not the 90s with the beginning of the 2000s, the armor should be thicker so that they don’t burn from ordinary lemons (caterpillars were discussed in another topic and wheeled vehicles, so the armored personnel carrier has a top of 2,5 mm?!? I saw the side, there is 7mm, but I don’t know the top.)
          2. +7
            25 October 2022 23: 08
            Quote: certero
            Where are Almaty with KAZs?

            No.
            Quote: certero
            Where are the "Oplots" with the same KAZs?

            belay Tank "Oplot", this is the brainchild of the "gloomy Ukrainian genius" of the post-Soviet period in the city of Kharkov.
            Well, and also the name of the brigade in the DPR (five) and a public organization in Kharkov and Donetsk.
            Quote: certero
            It is on technological superiority that victory should be built.

            Quality without quantity is losing the war.
            The Wehrmacht relied on the technical and qualitative superiority of its army, but the Soviet military machine and our mighty military-industrial complex - QUANTITY ... which grew into quality won.
            With the beginning of the NWO, the towers also dreamed of a "Small" but well-equipped army to quickly defeat a multiple-superior enemy on its territory (with little bloodshed on foreign territory) ... it did not work out.
            Why
            We had to fight in a numerical ratio of one to five, without reserves, normal rotation ...
            And why don't you like the T-62M? They are not driven into tank attacks, they rather serve as self-propelled anti-tank guns to support infantry in defense, at roadblocks. I hope you will not protest if I say that the T-62M is better than the Rapira towed anti-tank gun? And when the infantry advances, the T-62M will support it much better than the BMP-1 \ 2 and even the BMP-3.
            And the disposal of shells in battle is much more rational than financing and organizing their disposal at specialized enterprises.
            Do not agree ?
            Quote: certero
            Why did Russia spend so much money on the military-industrial complex?

            She didn't spend anything. Neither the military budget was prohibitive, nor the Fleet was built, nor the fleet of Military Transport Aviation was updated, nor normal means of communication, nor a mobile reserve, nor a high-quality rear organization.
            What did you spend on?
            A sufficient number of T-72s have been upgraded to B3 \ B3M, and this is good, that's right. They put in the troops a large number of BTR-82A and a considerable BMP-3. To a large extent, the composition of combat aviation has been updated. A large number of missiles of various types and classes were created and came to the troops.
            Quote: certero
            a real war has begun, again rely on the legacy of the "cursed scoop"?

            And why is he cursed for you?
            Or did the period of the great Hapka bring you something for defense?
            Near Moscow in 1941, even fortress guns of the late 19th century were dragged to the front line. And they dismantled German tanks with direct fire, despite the fact that due to the lack of sights, they aimed them through the barrel. In war, this does not happen.
            And why, for example, is the T-62M worse than the new American light tank, which is only going to be put into service?
            A tool?
            Armor? (taking into account that they have about the same mass)
            Mobility? (well, maybe so, but change the engine to a more powerful one ...)
            In war, every bast in a line must be. And reliability, reliability and maintainability are usually much more important than "fashionable" and "refined".
          3. +2
            27 October 2022 00: 16
            Quote: certero
            Well, the fact that Russian guys will be "utilized" along with the tanks is not important. So?

            Well, the fact that without the support of the armor the Russian guys will be "utilized" does not matter. So?
            Ask any infantry company commander if he wants to go on the attack with the support of a couple of T-62s, or is it better without?
        3. Alf
          +1
          25 October 2022 18: 27
          Quote: Nagan
          Or to stick a new motor from the T-72, most likely not much more difficult than to stick a 2106 motor into a "penny".

          And a box at the same time. Provided that there is a place for them in the MTO ...
          1. 0
            25 October 2022 20: 14
            I won’t say about the checkpoint, but the motor, that the one that is different, in principle, is a modernization of the good old V-2, which carried more thirty-fours and KVs. Dimensions and seats must match. It's like the Volga GAZ-21 of the middle of the 421th century is equipped with UMZ-XNUMX engines of the XNUMXst century, and they stand up like family.
            1. Alf
              +1
              25 October 2022 20: 52
              Quote: Nagan
              and the motor, which is the one that is different, in principle, is a modernization of the good old V-2

              WHAT ? 5TDF modernization of V-2? No more questions, the level is clear...
              1. +2
                26 October 2022 05: 48
                Quote: Alf
                WHAT ? 5TDF modernization of V-2? No more questions, the level is clear...
                What? 5TDF in T-62 and T-72? No more questions, the level is clear...
                1. Alf
                  0
                  26 October 2022 18: 21
                  Quote: Nagan
                  Quote: Alf
                  WHAT ? 5TDF modernization of V-2? No more questions, the level is clear...
                  What? 5TDF in T-62 and T-72? No more questions, the level is clear...

                  I thought that you are talking about the T-64.
                  1. 0
                    26 October 2022 20: 48
                    OK, we will consider the incident settled.
                    1. Alf
                      0
                      26 October 2022 21: 16
                      Quote: Nagan
                      OK, we will consider the incident settled.

                      OK !
      2. +3
        25 October 2022 09: 12
        I also think where our T-64s are, why not at the front in Ukraine, I heard that there were no problems in replacing the automatic loader from the T-80, there were such projects in OMSK and put a 125 mm gun from the T-80, since the plant makes such and hangs a dynamic protection. But somehow, after the death of the boys of the Maikop brigade, some strange taboo was imposed on the T-64.
        1. +17
          25 October 2022 09: 56
          Quote: insafufa
          I also think where our T-64s are, why not at the front in Ukraine, I heard that there were no problems in replacing the automatic loader from the T-80, there were such projects in OMSK and put a 125 mm gun from the T-80, since the plant makes such and hangs a dynamic protection. But somehow, after the death of the boys of the Maikop brigade, some strange taboo was imposed on the T-64.

          There is an idea that, for example, the t-62s were put into conservation under the USSR in compliance with all the rules, and the t-64s under Yeltsin were put into storage as it turned out ... the same is true for other types and models.
          1. +5
            25 October 2022 23: 25
            Quote: Civil
            There is an idea that, for example, the T-62 was put into conservation under the USSR in compliance with all the rules

            The last T-62Ms were put into reserve after the Five Day War, where they fought well with the modernized Georgian T-72s. Therefore, it was much easier and faster to withdraw them from storage. Yes, and it is an order of magnitude easier during restoration repairs, which is why they got what was put into operation faster.
            Even to replace the anti-tank "Rapier" T-62M - it's just a fairy tale.
            If I (for example) who had a tank brigade in the theater of operations were offered to reinforce a tank regiment on the T-62M, do you think I would break my hands with grief? bully
            It is necessary to rejoice that Russia has so many tanks.
            Good and different.
        2. +2
          25 October 2022 19: 51
          I don’t see any connection between the death of the Maykopians and the absence of T64 now in my own.
        3. +1
          25 October 2022 22: 22
          Quote: insafufa
          I also think where our T-64s are, why not at the front in Ukraine

          Have you tried reading first? The entire article is devoted to this topic.
        4. KCA
          +2
          29 October 2022 11: 43
          92-93 served in the Maykop brigade, something T-64 did not see, T-72 and T-55
          1. 0
            29 October 2022 12: 18
            When I was in the service in the 42nd Far East, we were often told that then, like, you had T-64s. if you were like the T-72 you would not have such a deplorable result.
            1. KCA
              0
              29 October 2022 12: 50
              I doubt that by December 1994 the tanks were modernized, they were completely naked, without dynamic protection, and with RPGs in the roof it’s all the same that the T-72, that the T-55, that the T-64, the Maykop brigade was created on the basis of a cropped division, accordingly, the equipment was not at all new, the only thing is that when we went into the field to the border of Chechnya and Ingushetia during the zone of emergency, new BTR-80s were brought from the R&D, straight from the factory
              1. +1
                29 October 2022 13: 17
                So in 42 Far East we had mostly T-62Ms with dynamic protection if we were lucky, but with Brezhnev's eyebrows and another T-55 were in the same battalion. We looked at the T-80 like the marines had such a spaceship.
                1. KCA
                  0
                  29 October 2022 17: 06
                  In Maikop, the tanks were definitely without remote sensing, it’s hard not to notice, especially when the park was 20 meters from our tent in the field, and I went to the park a dozen times, somehow left the tent in the morning and to the thorn for small needs, I watched the officers scatter from the park, it turned out that someone threw an oil rag in the T-72, and the tube from the compressed air cylinder poisoned, well, the fire, the fly jumped into the tank and extinguished it with a powder fire extinguisher, just a hero, I was completely oh, when all the ammunition was laid out not an awning and cleaned of the powder, it could not be weak to squeeze, but I calmly wrote to myself
      3. +2
        25 October 2022 16: 12
        How much can I say, these tanks have not been in the Russian Federation for thirty years already! The automatic loader is designed only for the old Soviet 3BM-22, I generally keep quiet about the engine.
        1. +4
          25 October 2022 16: 35
          Quote: 78bor1973
          How much can I say, these tanks have not been in the Russian Federation for thirty years already!

          You are confusing concepts, decommissioned and available. T-62, also, in fact, we don’t have it, they have long been decommissioned, but they are available at storage bases, the same story with the T-64, they have been decommissioned, but they are available

          On the video, what we have not had for 30 years, the T-64BV tank, is preparing to fly to the "warm regions", closer to the border with Ukraine
          1. +2
            25 October 2022 23: 34
            Colleague, do not burn the office - Russia does not have such tanks! stop bully
        2. 0
          26 October 2022 08: 07
          Well, the T-64 And the automatic loader was redone 125mm back in the 1970s, as stated in one YouTube channel. True life, there is a lot of interesting things there, I don’t understand the ecstasy about 115 mm T-64 B shells and does cost an AZ similar to the T-80
      4. 0
        28 October 2022 11: 43
        What only our brother does not "swallow right away" And t-62 and 64 and enthusiastically discusses, analyzes. It seemed that the t-72 was lying on the surface - Take it and use it.
    2. +2
      25 October 2022 14: 15
      Quote: Nagan
      Okay, let's hope the military knows better what, when, and how to do it.

      Well, cross the T-64 turret and the T-62 hull ... feel Or T-55 with BMPT ...
  2. +2
    25 October 2022 05: 05
    It always surprised me that compact boxer engines never became popular in tanks, as they get the most out of the smallest engine.

    Even reducing the height of the hull by a few centimeters would significantly reduce the weight of the armor.
    1. +14
      25 October 2022 07: 08
      And I am always surprised by the stubborn exaggeration of the topic about tanks. Especially about the T-62 in the NWO. Although not enough has been said by experts.
      About the D-20, which has been in service since 1947, or comments like a reliable howitzer, a Stalinist sledgehammer, and other similar weapons, too.
      I will not explain here about the difference between the automatic loader and the MZ - a mechanism that is used on the T-64 and T-80. And about the 5TDF diesel, they are already tired of describing it.
      But is it really not clear that the T-62 is being modernized in Transbaikalia because there is an opportunity, there are components and assemblies, technologies in sufficient quantities. Simple, cheap, not great, but enough for many tasks in terms of performance characteristics. In addition, there is a lot of good experience with this tank, and it is mostly positive.
      It would be better for all our tankers to Armata, but now we cannot do without certain compromises.
      1. +1
        26 October 2022 04: 33
        I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the lower the height and surface area of ​​the tank, the better.

        And not that boxer engines are theoretically very well suited for this role.

        The real issue would be whether the successor boxer engine could be made more reliable without being even more expensive.
    2. +9
      25 October 2022 09: 01
      It always surprised me that compact boxer engines never became popular in tanks, as they get the most out of the smallest engine.

      So talk to live tankers who made love with this miracle throughout their service. And the question will disappear like an apple in the fall.
      1. +4
        25 October 2022 09: 24
        Quote: frog
        chat with live tankers who made love with this miracle throughout their service.

        All the more so for the winter, and turning the nuts in the field in the cold is still fun.
      2. +5
        25 October 2022 09: 56
        So talk to live tankers who made love with this miracle throughout their service. And the question will disappear like an apple in the fall.
        The presence of two crankshafts (!) already implies the complexity of the design and maintenance of the power unit, as well as the further quality of the assigned combat mission.
        1. +9
          25 October 2022 10: 32
          Crankshafts in tank units are still not serviced. Plus there are no valves and associated torment with valve timing
          Torment in another. He loves oil, needs heating already at +5, an extremely unsuccessful air cleaner.
          1. +4
            25 October 2022 10: 50
            If only this)).... But, in general, if you do not go into details, then, based on what you said - "the motor was very similar to the real one, but did not work." If the late Union were really a totalitarian-planned state (about which those who occasionally suffer from bouts of fire sometimes begin to whine)) - the only thing that could be done with it - without launching it into mass production, present this item to San Sanych, tactfully hinting that the next one will be a monument , instead of a tombstone ....
            1. +1
              25 October 2022 11: 06
              When I studied at the VK, the officers said that in the GSVG 64 they did not like, but did not hate.
              The most combat-ready units of the USSR with the best infrastructure used the T-64 quite well and maintained the highest level of readiness.
              San Sanych could, with the same reason, send spiteful critics to study military affairs in a real way.
              In fact, the claims against 64 are absolutely fair. But it’s hard to get rid of the idea that their underlying reason is the desire to overwhelm the enemy with iron and meat, and these comrades don’t know how and don’t want anything else
              1. +2
                25 October 2022 12: 09
                Well, I was also told a lot on VK. And then I talked a bit with the naval .... At work. They said something else .... The thing is, how many people, so many conversations)).
                And yet, yes, the "most combat-ready" ones used it in European conditions (and even then, according to ... the cold season, there were matyukov there too)), and the places of deployment of all the others are somewhat .... more extensive. And what do they do with this miracle? Or sculpt your own iron for each climatic zone? So there are no economic opportunities here. Not to mention the fact that the combat effectiveness of these is explained not only by the "forward echelon" wink . What about others? To study "military affairs in a real way"? Why didn't you study?
                I don’t justify the green ones at all, with their "features" lol , nor try to denigrate the "great and terrible." there it’s quite possible to present yourself from all sides ..... Something is fair, something is so, due to trends laughing .
                As for your last phrase, everything is even simpler here. Those who know that the SA, that the current armed forces can quite explain to themselves, but they are unlikely to feel . A close acquaintance with some "sovereign servants" is hardly included in their plans lol
                1. +1
                  25 October 2022 16: 23
                  Quote: frog
                  (and even then, according to ... the cold season of Matyukov was there too)),

                  Did you also hear this on VK?
                  Quote: frog
                  And then I talked a little with the naval ...

                  Yeah, but where did the naval knowledge on these engines come from? And as far as I know, the naval ones suffer much more with star-shaped marine diesel engines of the M series than tankers with 5TDF
                  1. +1
                    25 October 2022 16: 27
                    I mean, one thing is told in the departments, but something else happens in life. Sometimes....
                    If I displayed the thought somewhat incorrectly, you can throw a slipper at me, you can even from a kirzuha ....
                    For "suitcases" I heard from a decent number of tankers. I willingly admit that they conspired not to give out military secrets and to mislead me, a wretch.
                    1. +3
                      25 October 2022 16: 46
                      Quote: frog
                      For "suitcases" I heard from a decent number of tankers.

                      Most of them, even in military schools, did not study it and were not prepared to operate it, which leads to its frequent breakdowns precisely because of ignorance, hence most of the "horror stories"
                      1. +1
                        25 October 2022 16: 55
                        As for this - alas for me .... I don’t have statistics on who was preparing for what, and who, sorry, “ridden” on what. The fact that with these moments we traditionally had ... funny - I'm still aware. But just how much...
                        Not to mention the fact that l / s is usually not taught in schools)). And then - all the claims to the MO and traditions ....
                      2. +2
                        25 October 2022 17: 08
                        Quote: frog
                        Not to mention the fact that l / s is usually not taught in schools))

                        But they were taught in the training units by officers graduating from those military schools.
                        The only command tank where this tank was studied thoroughly was the Kharkov one, in all the rest it was studied superficially. And yes, from tank technical, I personally had the opinion that this car was studied much better in Omsk, somehow not in Kyiv, their graduates have a lot of force, but little knowledge on this car
                      3. +2
                        25 October 2022 18: 11
                        What, however, was a glorious Union. From your words .... Tanks were stamped with bags, and they prepared the way in one school. Nice. And in the studies of graduates of this, too .... not in abundance, obviously. Wonderful.
                      4. +3
                        25 October 2022 18: 24
                        Quote: frog
                        Tanks were stamped with bags, and prepared on the way in one school. Nice.

                        How strange you are. Yes, tanks were stamped, and prepared in schools. But, most importantly, but ... In my time, in Kharkov, the T-64 was the main tank, then the T-80UD, in Chelyabinsk - T-72, in Kazan - T-80 with a gas turbine engine, in Chirchik T-55, T-62 and T-72, in Blagoveshchensk T-62 and T-80 with gas turbine engines
                      5. +1
                        25 October 2022 19: 00
                        Naturally weird. EMNIP, there were 8 schools, two of them were engineering. And only in Kharkov they prepared (normally)) on the T-64 .... Which they released nothing at all, 15 thousand, go ....
                      6. +1
                        25 October 2022 18: 57
                        The only command tank where this tank was studied thoroughly was the Kharkov one, in all the rest it was studied superficially. And yes, from tank technical, I personally had the opinion that this car was studied much better in Omsk, somehow not in Kyiv, their graduates have a lot of force, but little knowledge on this car

                        Ready to subscribe to your every word. Short and precise. Especially about the graduates of the Kyiv Engineering. In this regard, Omsk is above all praise, techies from God.
              2. +2
                25 October 2022 17: 03
                Quote: Engineer
                When I studied at the VK, the officers said that in the GSVG 64 they did not like, but did not hate.

                The only school where this tank and engine were thoroughly studied was Kharkov, in all the others it was studied superficially, hence the inability to properly operate it and the fear of screwing it up.
                A completely normal engine, but the tank, for its time, was generally cool, significantly superior to the T-72 in terms of fire capabilities
          2. +5
            25 October 2022 10: 52
            The point is not in the maintainability of individual parts and the advantages of the timing scheme, the point is that in general the type of engine of the original design with great love for the Motherland was designed and installed in the T-64 tank, which was no less beloved by the Motherland. Innovation in the design of military equipment is certainly a good thing, but not to the same extent. Making love with a tank in nature is a nice thing, but it’s better with the T-62, since its MTO does not have such a tight lineup as in the T-64, and the V-55V engine, unlike the 5TDF, is less demanding during operation and maintenance. smile
            1. +2
              25 October 2022 16: 10
              Quote: oppozite28
              and the V-55V motor, unlike the 5TDF, is less demanding during operation and maintenance

              And what is difficult to maintain 5TDF, unlike the V-55V? You don’t need to wash the cassettes, the reverse start is not terrible, the fuel filters should be serviced periodically, that’s the difficulty ... I read such statements and I understand that if you saw 5TDF, it’s only in the picture
              1. +2
                25 October 2022 23: 07
                I’m reading such statements and I understand that if you saw 5TDF, then only in the picture
                Forgot to mention the subtleties in the tension of the tracks. wink
                1. +1
                  26 October 2022 08: 10
                  Quote: oppozite28
                  Forgot to mention the subtleties when tensioning the tracks

                  What's "thin"? Cool look...
          3. 0
            25 October 2022 20: 01
            We were told during our studies that the cost of a crankshaft is half the cost of the entire engine. I can’t say how things are now, but the complexity of manufacturing the crankshaft has not gone away.
          4. 0
            3 November 2022 10: 26
            Quote: Engineer
            Crankshafts in tank units are still not serviced. Plus there are no valves and associated torment with valve timing
            Torment in another. He loves oil, needs heating already at +5, an extremely unsuccessful air cleaner.
      3. 0
        25 October 2022 16: 05
        Quote: frog
        So talk to live tankers who made love with this miracle throughout their service.

        Well, let's have a chat. Normal engine. You just need to know it, not be afraid and be able to exploit ...
        And all such statements
        Quote: frog
        And the question will disappear like an apple in the fall.

        from the Evil One, an attempt to hide one's inability and lack of training
  3. +16
    25 October 2022 05: 10
    At the end of the USSR, I had the opportunity to look at the equipment that was "in storage". I will say that in order to restore each technical unit, it will have to be completely disassembled and reassembled, with the complete replacement of individual parts and assemblies. If there are not enough specialists and the necessary capacities (repair plants), this is practically impossible. The survivability of a tank in battle is 15-20 minutes in my opinion, and it is unprofitable to invest huge funds in restoration from "deep storage". Alternatively, you can dig them in like pillboxes, on the lines of defense.
    1. +2
      25 October 2022 06: 08
      This will not turn out to be a bunker, but a BOT - an armored firing point. It's just that they won't last long. A couple of shots, and then they will cover.
      1. -1
        25 October 2022 07: 03
        If the T-64s are so problematic, then can they make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle out of them by turning the body back to front, putting the engine and gearbox from the T-72? His armor is modern, and such alteration can be done at tank repair plants.
        1. Eug
          +2
          25 October 2022 08: 54
          There is such an option - TBMP -64, made for 115 armored personnel carriers in Kharkov, can be "torn off". . But the problems with the engine will remain.
          1. +2
            25 October 2022 09: 46
            They made it from the T-55

            If you modify it a little, put the engine from the T-72 and put the 30 mm automatic gun, then it will turn out super.
            1. Eug
              +2
              25 October 2022 10: 40
              This is the first option, then it was from the T-64.
              1. -2
                25 October 2022 17: 57
                Did not know! Can the engine and transmission from the T-72 be put there?
                But even from the T-55 it is possible to make TBMP according to their project, in every way better than the BMP-1/2/3 and much cheaper than the T-15 or Kurganets. Now they just rust in the open air and can get a second life and save a lot of lives at the front.
        2. +4
          25 October 2022 09: 12
          Vryatli, in your case, you need to change the command and control compartment, plus move the fighting compartment. It is easier to design a new infantry fighting vehicle than to convert the T-64 into an infantry fighting vehicle.
          1. Eug
            +1
            25 October 2022 20: 37
            So the whole point of the alteration is that the engine is in front and serves as additional protection, and the troop compartment is in the back. And on the TBMP-64 I really like the organization of the l / s exit - you can raise the upper part and fire back with machine guns, being protected by the lower part. The main complaint was the high cost of operation.
          2. -1
            25 October 2022 23: 39
            It is easier to design a new infantry fighting vehicle than to convert the T-64 into an infantry fighting vehicle.

            It was easier and more competent to design and put into production in the early 2000s, but now it is necessary as cheaper, faster and better.
            Having a ready-made well-armored lower part of the hull with a running gear, it is easier to cut off the upper part, remove the turret, move the controls (and these are several rods and cables) and install them next to the engine, then weld the side armor to the required height, weld the upper armor plate with a place for towers, and install a module with a 30 mm automatic cannon and a 7,62 machine gun from the BTR-82A, make a large armored ramp at the back and airborne chairs suspended from the roof.
            The cost of such an alteration will be several times less than the construction of a new T-15 infantry fighting vehicle, as well as speed, and this can be done even at tank repair plants.
      2. +1
        25 October 2022 09: 48
        tatarin72 Yep, they'll cover it. You think it's easy. Tried.
    2. +7
      25 October 2022 09: 46
      Vasiliy Okoneshnikov Again stories from Lenin's room. If life in battle is 15 minutes, how do they manage to fight for 8 months already?
  4. +1
    25 October 2022 05: 19
    Yes, we certainly have specialists in the T-64. I think this is a bogus problem.
    1. -3
      25 October 2022 06: 04
      Yes, we certainly have specialists in the T-64. I think this is a bogus problem.
      Of course, there must be specialists. Simple arithmetic: 2 thousand tanks x 3 crew members = 6 thousand. For ten years of service on these tanks, fighters in military service, taking into account a 2-year service life, 6 thousand fighters x 5 years = 30 thousand tankers familiar with the T-64 ... this is the minimum.
      1. 0
        25 October 2022 07: 24
        plus subtract - everyone except the driver and then the calculation will be more or less correct .. the rest will get used to the time at least they need standard equipment ... and this is not a spaceship after an airplane, a driver with a t-72 in a month maximum - will rebuild "as if was there."
      2. 0
        25 October 2022 09: 23
        No, I just know one retired lieutenant colonel, and so he just served them. The tank is still Soviet, which means there should be at least deputy technical officers.
      3. +7
        25 October 2022 09: 30
        Quote: Sergey Kuzmin
        Of course, there must be specialists. Simple arithmetic: 2 thousand tanks x 3 crew members = 6 thousand. For ten years of service on these tanks, fighters in military service, taking into account a 2-year service life, 6 thousand fighters x 5 years = 30 thousand tankers familiar with the T-64 ... this is the minimum.

        T-64s were put into reserve in the last century, so the conscripts who were "lucky" to serve on them are already at the pre-retirement age. Yes, and it has been forgotten for so many years.
      4. +2
        25 October 2022 19: 46
        Quote: Sergey Kuzmin
        Yes, we certainly have specialists in the T-64. I think this is a bogus problem.
        Of course, there must be specialists. Simple arithmetic: 2 thousand tanks x 3 crew members = 6 thousand. For ten years of service on these tanks, fighters in military service, taking into account a 2-year service life, 6 thousand fighters x 5 years = 30 thousand tankers familiar with the T-64 ... this is the minimum.

        Yes Yes...
        Lieutenants - tankers on him in 1991 - are already a pensioner (if not a colonel).
        And the conscripts are also already pensioners, not subject even with full mobilization
  5. +3
    25 October 2022 05: 22
    What is better - to dispose of the T-64s in storage, or to use them as firing points, with equipment against ATGMs? In my opinion, the answer is obvious, it is necessary to build a border with the Outskirts right now.
    1. +10
      25 October 2022 06: 00
      Quote: Popenko
      it is necessary to build a border with the outskirts now.

      The border should be built with Poland. And if a more sane government turns out to be in Germany, then agree on the restoration of the Russian-German border as it was before the start of the First World War.
      1. +2
        25 October 2022 19: 55
        Not booming in the geomania of a sane leadership, cleaned up, everything, aless kaput
  6. +12
    25 October 2022 05: 30
    Mobilized tankers one way or another came across in military service with T-64 generation vehicles, and not with T-62
    - The T-62 was used in both Chechen and Georgian, so the statement is highly debatable ....
  7. +10
    25 October 2022 05: 43
    Eugene 'what will 300 workers do in the new "factory"? In Soviet times, I took military equipment to Kharkov for repairs, for high-quality repairs, and not for upgrading, you need production, and not just a repair base. There you need to have your own forge, a stamping shop, an etching machine, a bunch of drilling, round and flat grinding machines, centering, and much more, and not just welding, but locksmiths for surface bulkheading of single units. For example, we will remove the turret, dismantle the gun, replace all body kits, install dynamic protection, normal repair of the undercarriage - here you need normal production with a staff of workers from different specialties of at least 1100-1300 people in order to make at least a couple of dozen tanks a month. And, for engine repair, it’s also not a problem - they are fighting in the Donbass T64, and there you will find specialists on the engine of the T64 tank!
  8. -3
    25 October 2022 06: 14
    What advantages will Kharkov tanks provide over the outdated T-62 series? Primarily,
    the fact that our compatriots from the Crimea, Donbass and other lands of Novorossiya, newly accepted into Russian citizenship, have real experience of their exploitation in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They just need to be reminded.
    And yet, you can go along the path of installing towers removed from the T-64, unsuitable for operation due to the engine or chassis, on the T-62 hulls during modernization, well, almost like it happens when the T-80UD towers are installed on the T chassis -80B and receive T-80UE1
    1. +4
      25 October 2022 07: 02
      Or you can replace the engine. At the production base of the armored repair plant of the Ministry of Defense of Uzbekistan, a major overhaul and modernization of the T-64 tank was carried out. In particular, the 64TDF engine was replaced on the T-5 tank with a V-84 V-engine, as a result of which its power was increased by 140 l / s. In addition, to protect the crew members, the tank hull was reinforced with additional armor, a grille and dynamic protective boxes were installed. Communication facilities were replaced with modern digital radio stations produced in Uzbekistan under the Hytera brand.
      1. -3
        25 October 2022 09: 57
        Can the engine be replaced?
        - maintenance of boxer engines has long been no longer a problem in Russia. Tens of thousands of cars with similar engines drive across the expanses of our country, just remember Subaru and Porshe, I don’t think that 5TDF is more difficult to maintain Japanese and German engines ....
        1. +2
          25 October 2022 19: 49
          Quote: faiver
          remember Subaru and Porshe, I don’t think that 5TDF is more difficult to maintain Japanese and German engines ....

          You can remember - but for some reason they are being dragged to cities with millionaires to repair them. Don't know why?
          1. 0
            25 October 2022 20: 02
            the nearest city of a million people is four thousand kilometers from me, if on the highway, I don’t know anyone who would drive their cars there for service ... bully
            1. -1
              25 October 2022 20: 16
              Quote: faiver
              the nearest city of a million people is four thousand kilometers from me, if on the highway, I don’t know anyone who would drive their cars there for service ... bully

              Well, Ukraine will definitely not come to conquer the Far East on tanks ....
              And in the European and Siberian parts of the Russian Federation, Subaru and Porsche are a rare beast ..
              The discussion was for Ukraine, as it were, and tanks there
              1. -1
                25 October 2022 21: 32
                the discussion was about the T-64 in storage in the Russian Federation and the problematic opponent on it, and they can stand in storage anywhere in the vastness of our country.
                I don’t know how it is in Siberia, but in the central part of the country there are enough Porsches, and there are enough Subaru everywhere in Siberia and in the center and in the Far East ....
                1. +1
                  25 October 2022 22: 59
                  There are only 17 Subaru for 600 cars in our regional center.
                  One is regularly dragged to the region for repairs .....

                  Well, hell with them ...

                  I don't mind - put whatever you want on whoever you want, wherever you want....
                  Though perdimonokl on Abrams - I don’t feel sorry ...
                  Let the American feel Tankers practice...
      2. +2
        25 October 2022 09: 57
        expensive idea, it is possible, but expensive. We have a lot of t-72s, t-80s and they are modernizing them according to this principle. t-64 for scrap. But the t-62 is possible, it was exploited by the troops, in the war with Georgia, there is experience working with it. Modernizations were carried out. And the t-62 guys will also come in handy.
        T-62AM - modernization of the T-62 with a 125mm cannon. In 1963, the automatic loader, manufactured for the Object 167M, was installed on one of the T-62 prototypes (Object 166Zh). In 1965, work was completed on its completion. As a result, the Tagil automatic loader turned out better than the Kharkov one for the "Object 432". The machine gun was simpler in design, more reliable, ensured the transition of the driver from the control compartment to the combat compartment without performing any preliminary work, due to this, it increased the survivability of the tank during shelling. The automatic loader had a capacity for 21 shots. As a result, starting in 1966, the Tagil plant was ready to produce the T-62 tank with an automatic loader, which could use ammunition for the T-64. But even then, the tank was not put into mass production. On November 5, 1967, the Minister of Defense Industry S. A. Zverev arrived at Uralvagonzavod, where he was shown a T-62 with a 125-mm D-81 cannon and an automatic loader. He liked the automatic loader and offered to install it in the Kharkov T-64.
        T-62M (2005) - modernization of the T-62 tank of the Omsk Design Bureau "Transmash": 115-mm gun with a heat-shielding casing, dynamic protection "Kontakt-5" on the turret and "Kontakt-1" on the hull, V-46 engine -5M (690 hp). A new control system, radio equipment, a fire extinguishing system, a new multi-channel sight 1K13D-22, as well as a KUV 1K116-2 Sheksna were installed.
        T-62M (2021) - modernization of the T-62M, equipped with a multispectral gyro-stabilized optoelectronic system, an electromechanical mast and a new 1PN-96MT-02 sight. On the sides are installed dynamic protection "Contact-1" and lattice anti-cumulative screens
    2. +5
      25 October 2022 09: 18
      And yet, you can go along the path of installing towers removed from the T-64, unsuitable for operation due to the engine or chassis, on the T-62 hulls during modernization
      The shoulder strap of the tower is different, it will not work to make a Frankenstein wassat
      1. -2
        25 October 2022 13: 32
        Quote: insafufa
        The shoulder strap of the tower is different, it will not work to make a Frankenstein

        Yes, yes. , and equal to the shoulder strap T-62, 64 mm = 2245 mm
    3. +7
      25 October 2022 09: 40
      Quote: svp67
      And yet, you can go along the path of installing towers removed from the T-64, unsuitable for operation due to the engine or chassis, on the T-62 hulls during modernization

      Are you sure that the T-64 turret is compatible with the T-62 shoulder strap? And digesting shoulder straps is a whole thing. Again, the T-64 turret weighs more, if only due to the heavier gun and automatic loader, but will the transmission and chassis pull so much extra weight?
      I'm not asking to tease you, I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and these questions come up on their own. And tank experts will probably have even more questions.
      1. 0
        25 October 2022 14: 35
        Quote: Nagan
        Are you sure that the T-64 turret is compatible with the T-62 shoulder strap?

        Yes.
        Quote: Nagan
        And digesting shoulder straps is a whole thing.

        There you will have to WELD the ring, since the shoulder strap of the T-62 is larger than that of the T-64 2245 mm versus 2162 mm
        Quote: Nagan
        Again, the T-64 tower weighs, it looks like it’s more

        The tower assembled with the MOH - yes, but in the compartment, it will be normal, since the "eyebrows" + 115-mm ammo + one crew member, this is the same weight, by the way distributed unevenly, the "eyebrows" greatly shifted the CT to the nose, which it has a very unfavorable effect, when working with manual aiming tools, and also on the general comfort of driving this combat vehicle, which is why, when moving over long distances, beyond the expectation of combat clashes, it is better to turn the turret with a gun to the stern.
        Quote: Nagan
        But will the transmission and chassis pull so much extra weight?

        Will pull. There are already many options for such alterations and with a tower from the T-64/80, and with a tower from the T-72 made in metal
        There is a North Korean tank Chonma-Ho IV, with a base chassis from the T-62, with a new turret, but with an AZ and a 125-mm TP
  9. -2
    25 October 2022 06: 17
    Quote: Popenko
    What is better - to dispose of the T-64s in storage, or to use them as firing points, with equipment against ATGMs? In my opinion, the answer is obvious, it is necessary to build a border with the Outskirts right now.

    The matter is moving towards the colleague that the Outskirts as such most likely will not exist. But the borders need to be strengthened. The NWO continues to reveal the problems of the army.
    1. +2
      25 October 2022 09: 20
      Well, BOTS have already ordered concrete firing points made at reinforced concrete factories of large panel housing construction
  10. +7
    25 October 2022 07: 01
    From his service, I drew attention to one drawback of the T64 tank, that the driver mechanic is isolated from the rest of the tank crew, and in order for him to get into the tower, he must get out of the tank, if in the T80 tank you can still somehow get from the driver’s mechanic’s seat by removing several cassettes in the loading mechanism then on the T64 tank, in order to remove the cassettes, tools are needed
    1. 0
      26 October 2022 23: 17
      The loading mechanism of the T64 and T80 is the same in design. The difficulties with the transition of the MV to the fighting compartment are the same. A puller for conveyor trays is available on both machines.
      1. 0
        27 October 2022 05: 38
        No, I don’t agree with you that the T80 MZ tank, having an outward resemblance, still has some mechanical differences from the MZ T64 tank, including in hydraulics and in mounting trays.
  11. -8
    25 October 2022 07: 17
    I also remember Strelkov noted the poor quality of the armor of the Kharkov T-64s. Kharkiv residents, as it turned out in the Donbass, in pursuit of volumes, cooked towers from simple cast iron, which often split and are stitched with a machine-gun burst. So the absence of Kharkov T-64 tanks in the formations of Russian troops in Ukraine is explained not only by the low quality of the engine, but also by problems with hacky armor.
    1. +15
      25 October 2022 10: 07
      stitched with machine gun burst
      - sorry, but this is bged ...
      1. 0
        25 October 2022 22: 04
        As the saying goes: "For what I bought, for that I sold". The issue was widely discussed during the battles for Slavyansk, in 2014-15. Technical details are not known to me, but in Donetsk, Lugansk, there is probably more information on this matter. Yes, and the comment below, from Genry, confirms the problem in a slightly different interpretation: “The T-64 has sides made of ordinary viscous steel, threaded holes are made directly into them. You can’t cut threads in the armor plate, only press inserts. -64.
        And yes, if you shoot at the side with a heavy machine gun, then a hole gnaws through with consequences.
        So there is only one meaning - a machine gun (at least a large-caliber one) is piercing the side of the Kharkov T-64. It is not clear where the military acceptance (representative of the customer of the USSR Ministry of Defense) looked. Apparently, today's problems with Ukraine were already acute then, if it was possible to send such tanks to the troops and no one took measures. There may be a difference in the quality of manufacture of T-64 tanks sent outside Ukraine and stored in Ukraine, including at the factory for the worse, which, in principle, is understandable. But this is already from the realm of fortune-telling on coffee grounds. The fact is that the side of the Kharkov T-64 is not much different from the side of the armored personnel carrier, or infantry fighting vehicle, in terms of the level of crew security. This probably explains his absence from the army.
        1. 0
          26 October 2022 08: 06
          There is a known case when in Iraq the KPVT pierced the side of Abrams, probably in the MTO area, where his skin is thinner. The chieftain also did not shine with thick sides, if I'm not mistaken. So in 2014, the penetration of the sides of the T-64 could have taken place in the case of the KPVT and good armor-piercing ones.
          What does "ordinary tough steel" mean? I will never believe that military representatives in the Soviet era would have allowed the manufacture of tank armor from steel 45, for example. Tank steel armor has long been homogeneous, the hardness of its hardening is a matter of taste, let's say, and in any case it will not be as hard as cemented.
    2. +3
      25 October 2022 11: 33
      Quote from Eugene Zaboy
      Kharkiv residents, as it turned out in the Donbass, in pursuit of volumes, cooked towers from simple cast iron, which often split and are stitched with a machine-gun burst.

      Well, it calls you.

      The T-64 has sides made of ordinary viscous steel, threaded holes are made right in them. In the armor plate, you cannot cut the thread, only press the inserts. This is a well-known hack T-64.
      And yes, if you shoot at the side with a heavy machine gun, then a hole gnaws through with consequences.

      Still, no one talks about the torsion bars of the roller suspension.
      They are two times shorter and thinner than those of the T-72, etc. and driving over bumps, they simply broke off and the tank began to crawl on the broch (until the harp flew off).
      1. -1
        25 October 2022 23: 03
        What the hell are you talking about? I served as a driver for 64. The car is an order of magnitude better than 72. There was an opportunity to compare.
        1. +1
          25 October 2022 23: 25
          I stupidly repeat what they wrote in 2014-15 about cracks in the turrets of tanks produced in Ukraine and the possibility of their destruction with the help of large-caliber machine guns when firing into the side. Nothing from myself.
          1. +1
            26 October 2022 13: 40
            Quote from Eugene Zaboy
            wrote in 2014-15 about cracks in the turrets of tanks produced in Ukraine and the possibility of their destruction with the help of large-caliber machine guns when firing into the side.

            On board - this is not about the tower, but about the chassis.
            The tower has long been learned to cast with high quality (still t-34) and the armor of the tower has always paid the most attention.

            And about the cracks - it was in the hulls of Ukrainian armored personnel carriers made of Polish armor supplied to the east - Iraq generally refused and turned the transport ships back.
    3. 0
      25 October 2022 18: 38
      Quote from Eugene Zaboy
      cooked simple towers cast iron

      The towers, judging by their appearance, are cast. And cast iron is generally difficult to weld. Those. yes, of course, there are virtuoso welders who will weld even a split cylinder block, but after such a repair it is better to get rid of the car, because such welds, as a rule, do not go for a long time.
  12. +1
    25 October 2022 07: 19
    "Naturally, the question arises - how does the Armed Forces of Ukraine fight on the descendants of the T-64? Simply because over the past thirty years they have been diligently finishing their unique diesel engine. And Russian tanks were mothballed."
    Author, why such a statement? whom did they finish there, when did they have a massive modernization of warehouses? they take from storage warehouses, the same as ours, or even worse .. they would write - how the finishing was expressed and how it happened, at least ... once you say ..
    1. +3
      25 October 2022 11: 17
      The author's statement is based on an analysis of objective reality. And it is this: the vast majority of cash in the T-64 units in the Armed Forces of Ukraine before the war were upgraded to the level of T-64BV mod. 2017. What does it mean? Thermal imaging sights for the gunner and commander, a digital radio station (licensed by Motorola), navigation with integration into the combat information network and an upgraded 5TDF engine with a computer self-diagnosis system.
      1. +2
        25 October 2022 11: 41
        Quote: Torvlobnor IV
        The overwhelming majority of cash in the T-64 units in the Armed Forces of Ukraine before the war were upgraded to the level of T-64BV mod. 2017.

        in parts - yes. and those that are now, for the most part - from storage - without upgrades .. and nothing - they are fighting .. I talked about this ..
  13. 0
    25 October 2022 07: 23
    ................................................. ................................................. ......... I agree with the Author 100%.
  14. +3
    25 October 2022 07: 40
    More than two thousand Russian T-64s: why they are still not in Ukraine
    The authors of the social / competition, who will give out the hottest headline? One yells that everything is gone, they decided to reopen the T62. Another, no less emotional, but why don't we use T64. It looks like they don't know how to earn money.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -2
      25 October 2022 08: 21
      T-64, "an order of magnitude more" perfect machines than ..
  15. +5
    25 October 2022 08: 08
    I will take this unique opportunity to agree with Yevgeny Fedorov.

    The T-64 could have been a first-line machine in its 60s and 70s (although there were questions then, there were also arguments in favor). As a mobilization machine, it is categorically bad. Why the hell are 2000 of these coffins kept - a rhetorical question.
    1. +3
      25 October 2022 09: 47
      Apparently, the fact that they are able to go to the front in a month. And the remaining T-72/80s in storage cannot already be in a month, or they can, but it is planned to mobilize even more than they already have.
      1. +8
        25 October 2022 09: 56
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        Apparently, the fact that they are able to go to the front in a month

        The ninth month has gone, let me remind you. Are they at the front? By the way, it is rather strange that the cunning T-64 is able to go to the front, but the T-72 homeless package is not able to.
        1. +2
          25 October 2022 11: 26
          Those that were able for nine months were at the front. For the rest, see above.
  16. +1
    25 October 2022 09: 06
    So who prevents to change the dviglo on the t-64, suddenly they decided to change it on the t-62 during modernization, but here, well, something doesn’t work ...
    1. +4
      25 October 2022 11: 39
      Quote from: User_neydobniu
      who prevents to change the dviglo on the t-64

      In addition to the engine, the T-64 still has a bunch of problems. The tank is very crude, with a disgusting quality of production, where a lot has changed / simplified in the design, in order to fulfill the plan, receive bonuses and awards.
      1. +2
        26 October 2022 09: 55
        In addition to the engine, the T-64 still has a bunch of problems. The tank is very crude, with a disgusting quality of production, where a lot has changed / simplified in the design, in order to fulfill the plan, receive bonuses and awards.

        And what kind of t-62 awards and prizes were not given? So why the hell, instead of upgrading it, are we rebuilding tanks with homogeneous armor? The whole article is written with a pitchfork on the water (oh, the engine is bad there, oh the quality of production), take and install a new engine, new guidance devices, patch up the welds, upgrade.
        1. 0
          26 October 2022 13: 27
          Quote from: User_neydobniu
          take and put a new engine,

          What for?
          The weakness of the torsion bars cannot be corrected, the engine cannot be replaced in the same installation dimensions.
          Bottom line: this shit is easier to melt down and make a new tank.
  17. +2
    25 October 2022 09: 45
    It doesn't quite work that way.

    0. There is a front of 1000 kilometers. Such a front would smear and swallow several thousand tanks.
    1. Any tank is always better than none. A LOT of tanks are needed for the current front.
    2. A tank with an experienced crew is better than a tank with recruits. And where can you get these experienced crews if all the vehicles are on the front line? That's just in the second line.
  18. +1
    25 October 2022 09: 50
    Is it possible to replace the engine with a T-64?
    1. +5
      25 October 2022 10: 28
      Possible but difficult
      5 TDF - high-speed. Our V's run at lower RPMs. This means it is necessary to change not only the engine but also the onboard gearboxes. And on 64-ke there is simply no free place in the MTO. Everything is very tight. It is extremely difficult to fit into the dimensions.
      1. +2
        25 October 2022 11: 52
        Quote: Engineer
        5 TDF - high-speed. Our V's run at lower RPMs.

        Same turnovers.
        But the engine is two-stroke, therefore, with the same displacement and speed, it has twice as much power as a four-stroke.

        And he eats a lot of oil and is not friendly with the muffler, so he "yells" characteristically.
        1. +1
          25 October 2022 12: 05
          v-46 from 72 -ki maximum speed 2300
          5 TDF max rpm 3000 it was not just called "high-speed"
          The rest are common truths or inaccuracies "like twice as much power with the same displacement"
          1. The comment was deleted.
  19. +3
    25 October 2022 09: 52
    T-64 is a capricious unit. So it was replaced by the t-72 and t-80. There are problems with the T-80, but they are being solved here and now. In Ukraine, they use the t-64, because it was developed in Kharkov. The T-72 and T-80 were forced out of storage. t-62 is a good infantry support vehicle in urban environments. It is smaller and more agile. But more crew is needed. As a variant of the T-62AM - modernization of the T-62 with a 125-mm gun. In 1963, an automatic loader made for the "Object 167M" was installed on one of the prototypes of the T-62 (Object 166Zh). In 1965, work on its completion was completed. As a result, the Tagil automatic loader turned out to be better than the Kharkov one for the "Object 432". The machine gun was simpler in design, more reliable, it ensured the transition of the driver from the control compartment to the combat one without performing any preliminary work, due to this it increased the survivability of the tank during shelling. The automatic loader had a capacity of 21 rounds. As a result, starting from 1966, the Tagil plant was ready to produce the T-62 tank with an automatic loader that could use ammunition for the T-64. But even then the tank was not put into serial production. On November 5, 1967, the Minister of Defense Industry S. A. Zverev arrived at Uralvagonzavod, where he was shown the T-62 with a 125-mm D-81 gun and an automatic loader. He liked the automatic loader and suggested installing it in the Kharkov T-64. This has already been done. It remains to update it all taking into account the time. But I consider the T-64 to be scrapped. We have neither the capacity nor the manpower to modernize this ancient tank.
    1. +1
      26 October 2022 07: 55
      Yeah, it was replaced by the T-80UD with the same engine, the same automatic loader and better sights than the T-72. Moreover, these UDs in Kharkov until 1991 managed to make much more than the rest - U.
      The problem of the T-64 was then seen in a different way - it was no longer possible to further strengthen protection due to mass growth. Initially, the tank weighed less than 40 tons.
      1. 0
        26 October 2022 11: 40
        Before the collapse of the USSR, about 800 T-80UDs were produced, after the collapse - about 50. By 1995, all T-80UDs in the Russian army were decommissioned.
        All UDs that were more or less converted into Strongholds and sold. The history of the t-80ud is over, this is an option to replace the voracious gas turbine engine. No one will remake with a replacement for a diesel t-80. What can be modernized. I didn’t like the t-64 then with the engine, running gear. And later you are absolutely right and the growth of the senseless mass.
        1. 0
          27 October 2022 08: 08
          I'm hinting at something else. Nobody in the 80s in the USSR was going to refuse either the T-64 diesel engine or its automatic loader. In Kharkov, they were not going to mess with any "alternatives" - and even more so with a diesel engine from the T-72, which, according to its characteristics, did not shine at that time. And even a new diesel engine of comparable power to a 6TD V, X or Y shaped is not a fact that it would fit in the T-80. The fire control system of the T-80 was initially taken from the T-64, as was the Cobra ATGM. The T-64 was taken out of production only due to the exhaustion of any possibilities for further modernization.
          Neither the T-64 nor the T-80 were delivered abroad in Soviet times. The T-72 was supplied, which sufficiently characterizes the attitude towards the last Ministry of Defense of the USSR.
          1. 0
            20 November 2022 16: 11
            What has been has passed. t-64 was not loved because of capriciousness. There were comparisons of tanks t-64, t-72, t-80. According to the totality of characteristics, the t-80 won. In terms of cross-country ability and efficiency, the t-72. In the efficiency of firing up to 4000 t-64 B., many decisions were transferred from the t-64 to the t-80 and to the t-72. For the t-80 and t-72 were built from the t-64. When the union collapsed, Russia decided to use the t-72 and t-80. New Ukraine decided to pull the t-64
  20. -1
    25 October 2022 10: 26
    maybe because, all other things being equal, with a qualitative upgrade, the t62 will turn out to be better than the t64, 72, 80, and what will be considered sedition here - yes, the T90MMM, all because it has a unitary charge with a metal sleeve, and it will not throw a tower from an arriving BOPS or a cumulative jet that pierced the armor but did not cause significant damage to the crew and the T62 vehicle, in "supertanks" from splashes of molten metal, partially combustible AZ or MZ cartridges will light up with closed hatches, separation of the tower, with open burnout. "double basses" were successfully used in the 2nd Chechen company T62, real thugs are no match for the current contract soldiers of the "Guards divisions"
    1. 0
      27 October 2022 08: 50
      I very much doubt that modernization can "reach out" the armor protection of the T-62 to the level of the latest T-64s, at least from BOPS. Initially, the T-62 had neither combined armor, nor even spaced armor, what was welded on it during modernization was more from cumulatives, and even then - these "cheeks" do not seem to be combined with dynamic protection.
      1. 0
        27 October 2022 11: 00
        yes, you are right about the armor, but BOPS is a melee weapon, it is very difficult to hit from domestic guns from afar, and the energy of the charge is lost. Ukraine still has similar guns (Abrams and Leopards have not yet been delivered). why was it inspired by the inaccuracies of domestic guns? a couple of years ago, I watched tank biathlon for the last time, when shooting from cannons in static and on the go, all the crews on the T72, including ours, if they hit a tank target, then, as a rule, along its edges, the "Chinese" hit exactly in the middle, I don’t think that this was due to the qualities of the gunners.
        1. 0
          27 October 2022 11: 32
          I don't know which T-72s are used in biathlon. If it’s just B, without upgrades, then by modern standards they have a simplified SLA and sights.
          1. 0
            27 October 2022 11: 50
            from Russia always T72B3M 2016, Belarus has its own but also a modern version, it’s not noticeable that their gun is more accurate than other T72s, the accuracy of the “Chinese” is immediately evident, this year I basically refused to view this can be called a coven in the current conditions, but I’ll try find it somewhere in the record, see exactly the shooting from the cannon at tank targets with BOPS.
            1. 0
              27 October 2022 15: 05
              Interesting, but I don’t think that we don’t practice firing BOPS at 1,5 km. +- after that. That the accuracy of the OFS compared to the rifled version left much to be desired - it was known from the very beginning.
  21. +3
    25 October 2022 10: 27
    Quote: stankow
    Vasiliy Okoneshnikov Again stories from Lenin's room. If life in battle is 15 minutes, how do they manage to fight for 8 months already?

    Svidomo detected... there is no letter s...
    1. 0
      25 October 2022 14: 58
      You can write a denunciation and go to the front
  22. -1
    25 October 2022 10: 55
    Or maybe from the 55s it was worth making something like heavy armored personnel carriers, as the Israelis once did. It could be used against enemy flying groups in Ukraine. A 30 mm gun would easily crush their alterations, and the armor would better protect against portable anti-tank systems.
  23. 0
    25 October 2022 11: 06
    I'm not an expert - but can't we put something domestic instead of this miracle engine? Yes, let them be low-speed V8s - but maybe this is enough for checkpoints? Somehow in this strange war, tank breakthroughs are not popular. And for positional battles, in building conditions, for equipping firing points - it’s still better to have a tank than not to have anything.
    1. +2
      25 October 2022 11: 45
      The game is not worth the candle!
      There is a lousy chassis: an unreliable engine, bursting torsion bars, sides made of ordinary steel.

      It can be used as an armored firing point (dig in).
  24. +3
    25 October 2022 11: 12
    The mobilized tankers one way or another came across in military service with the T-64 generation vehicles, and not with the T-62.


    The 42nd Motor Rifle Division handed over its T-62s only after the war on 08.08.08.
  25. -2
    25 October 2022 11: 16
    it would be nice to expand the production of new tanks from Omsk, something like a mobilization version of the t-90m
    1. +4
      25 October 2022 14: 40
      Quote: Barberry25
      it would be nice to expand the production of new tanks from Omsk, something like a mobilization version of the t-90m

      The mobilization version of the T-90M is the T-72B3M. smile
      1. 0
        25 October 2022 14: 49
        not quite, there is a different shape of the tower, yes, the body is similar, but the tower is different, and if it is possible to deploy production on at least one T-90M line, it will be great ..
  26. -1
    25 October 2022 12: 37
    It is necessary to quickly finish off the Nazis in their lair! Tired of all, however, these Bandera parasites. No time to modernize old stuff. We need prompt reopening and for the protection of settlements in the NWO zone !!! No one forbids doing modernization in the course of the NWO. Estimate, a flurry, a cloud of shells simultaneously and immediately from the T-62 and T-64 on Bandera armored vehicles !!! And for the capture of Kyiv, they will also come in handy, such a huge lethal force will shoot the Kyiv Bandera !!! In a couple of days, there will be nothing left of the defense of Kyiv. In the arsenals, in addition to the tanks themselves, there is probably ammunition, enough for all Bandera.
  27. -1
    25 October 2022 12: 59
    Quote: Nagan
    Quote: Civil
    NWO is not a war with slippers, all the best is needed here ...

    The 115 mm T-62 projectile is in every way stronger than the 30 mm BMP-2 projectile, and the armor is more serious than on the BMP. This is even if they do not reinforce what was old, but it seems like it was about hanging active armor. And the BMP sews even the CPV, and the DShK into the barrel at the right angle. What is better to support the infantry, T-62 or BMP? And do not say that the main idea of ​​​​the BMP is to transport troops for armor, the infantry has long been traveling almost exclusively outside, as in the Patriotic War on thirty-fours.

    Do you think in terms of the war with the "barmaleys"? DShK, yes on board ... In the presence of a front line, how will you drag the DShK and get close to the BMP? It's time to forget about the tactics of counter-guerrilla warfare, that's all, it doesn't exist from the word at all on the territory of the Reich's coming out.
    1. +2
      25 October 2022 15: 13
      Quote: Tank DestroyerSU-100
      In the presence of a front line, how will you drag the DShK and get close to the BMP?

      Why drag? Remember how anti-tank guns worked in WWII: either the correct placement of positions, so that part of the firepower always ended up on the flank of the advancing enemy armored personnel carrier, or the demonstrative actions of a small group that deployed this same armored personnel carrier forehead to the identified threat and side to the positions of the armored personnel carrier.
  28. +3
    25 October 2022 13: 09
    And some arithmetic - out of twelve mobilized tankers, four crews can be assembled for the T-64, and only three for the T-62.

    A very strange statement. Mechvod and tower, as it seems to me, are slightly different specialties. And if out of 12 mobilized only three mechanical drivers, four crews cannot be assembled in any way ... stop

    Although ... I have an acquaintance who served either in the special forces, or in the reconnaissance battalion. He was mobilized not so long ago and calls from time to time. He says he became ... a tanker. Moreover, the entire crew, like him, see the tank from the inside for the first time. request
  29. 0
    25 October 2022 13: 43
    Quote: Engineer
    Crankshafts in tank units are still not serviced.

    But problems with two appear twice as often? Or am I mistaken? He is afraid of overheating, they write. Do you have time to watch this in combat? The T-34 was simple, and training the most important crew member, the carrier, took less time than on any other. Is it hard to move the levers? Reading is incredible. But they had to do it. With settings and dances with tambourines around a miracle, but they were excluded. Expected difficulties are still better than surprises.
    1. 0
      25 October 2022 14: 04
      So the load on the two crankshafts is distributed). I already mentioned the lack of valves. this is a plus for use.
      There are a lot of cons, they were listed without me.
    2. 0
      25 October 2022 16: 41
      Quote: Crispy
      But problems with two appear twice as often? Or I'm wrong?

      You are wrong. There are definitely no problems with crankshafts on these engines
      Quote: Crispy
      He is afraid of overheating - they write. Do you have time to watch this in combat?

      ?????????? If the mech-water is normally trained, then it does this automatically, and after warming up the engine, the blinds are opened and you don’t have to bother anymore, the reliability of the engine is definitely enough for a fight
      Quote: Crispy
      T-34 was simple,

      Who told you such "tales"?
      Quote: Crispy
      and the training of the most important member of the crew, the driver, took less time than on any other.

      That's why they lost tanks on marches more than in battle, due to the fact that they saved fuel for preparing mech-waters in the rear
    3. 0
      25 October 2022 20: 30
      Quote: Crispy
      Is it hard to move the levers? Reading is incredible. But they had to do it.


      In 1930, the largest American trucks already had power steering, something that already existed on tractors. Probably, it was worthwhile then to place an order under Lend-Lease for a set of power pneumatics for the T34 - it is simple, cheap and indestructible (just for Soviet equipment and conditions), only noisy and somewhat less accurate.
  30. 0
    25 October 2022 14: 06
    Maybe there are some problems with the MTO service? The resource there is less than conventional diesel engines ...
    And so, there is no special value in them, after the T62 you need to let
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. -2
    25 October 2022 14: 42
    The T64 was originally an experimental tank that was adopted by the USSR, not even raw, but just a new one, a tank with robotic functions, multi-layer diesel armor, etc., it was made by the whole country of the USSR, we were ahead of the whole world at least 30 years. .
  33. +1
    25 October 2022 15: 35
    there may not be spare parts for the t-64, which is why they are in canned
  34. -2
    25 October 2022 15: 41
    Quote: Engineer
    So the load on the two crankshafts is distributed). I already mentioned the lack of valves. this is a plus for use.
    There are a lot of cons, they were listed without me.

    In fact, the theory of reliability says that the more elements in a machine (system), the less reliable it is. Because of the mathematical properties of everything in the universe. The total probability of failure-free operation of the system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities of the component parts. That is why, simple ones, consisting of a small number of parts, are reliable. And, of course, more maintainable. But the most important thing is the fight against overheating of the elements. And here the defect digs just in the small size of the heated parts. Here the task becomes quadratically complex - to remove heat, having small dimensions, and scattering surfaces of a small area.
    1. 0
      25 October 2022 19: 17
      The theory of reliability in your interpretation is emasculated. Unreliable postulates are declared. More complex mechanisms have lower loads on parts, less loaded components are more durable, and therefore, as a rule, complex mechanisms are more reliable than simple ones.
    2. +1
      26 October 2022 10: 02
      This is true if you increase the armor and the T62 gun to the level of T64 ...... but the mass will be 5 tons higher for the T62XX, due to the 4th crew member. But the car will be easier.
      And in its current, even modernized form, the T62 is a second-tier machine.
      100mm MT12 flashes the forehead to the engine with an old BOPS at all ranges ..... and T64 / 72 up to 1 km and even then it does not pierce the forehead.
  35. -1
    25 October 2022 15: 44
    Because the vast majority of all weapons of the Russian Federation remained only on paper.
  36. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 01
    On discovery there is a film about an armored plant in Oklahoma, sort of to extend the life of the Abrams. So they are completely dismantled down to the skeleton and reassembled, how long does this operation take? I think a lot.
    1. 0
      26 October 2022 10: 05
      And we also have ....... T90M part is new, part with a thorough repair of the old T90 and T72 of the later series
  37. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 08
    Back in the 90s, officers under the T-64 were trained at the military departments of Russian universities.

    And captured T-64s fought for the LPR / DPR.
  38. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 45
    The exact numbers of Russian and Soviet tanks that are now in long-term storage are not known for certain. One can only operate on the data of two or three years ago, according to which about 2,8 thousand vehicles of the T-55 series, 1,6 thousand of the T-62 series, 7,5 thousand T-72 and more than 3 thousand T- 80. Also in storage are about 2,2-2,3 thousand tanks of the T-64 series.


    According to OBS, those T64s that could be "raised" went to the republics whose names ended in "HP".

    What remains is not so easy to "raise" already, 8 years have spent a little T64 reserves.
  39. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 46
    Not convincing. It is rather true that during the BNE they put it in storage in such a way that one building remained.
  40. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 56
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Crispy
    But problems with two appear twice as often? Or I'm wrong?

    You are wrong. There are definitely no problems with crankshafts on these engines
    Quote: Crispy
    He is afraid of overheating - they write. Do you have time to watch this in combat?

    ?????????? If the mech-water is normally trained, then it does this automatically, and after warming up the engine, the blinds are opened and you don’t have to bother anymore, the reliability of the engine is definitely enough for a fight
    Quote: Crispy
    T-34 was simple,

    Who told you such "tales"?
    Quote: Crispy
    and the training of the most important member of the crew, the driver, took less time than on any other.

    That's why they lost tanks on marches more than in battle, due to the fact that they saved fuel for preparing mech-waters in the rear

    They lost tanks mainly when the remnants in 1942 began to betray the regiments. The infantry had neither workshops nor supply bases, and the broken ones, even for a small reason, were disposed of by high-speed methods.
  41. 0
    25 October 2022 17: 57
    that the T-62 with thermal imagers and other accessories could take the place of the BMP-3.

    more like a self-propelled assault gun ...
    like "octopus" only with decent protection ...
    and even as a tank, in a battle where there are no modern enemy tanks - everything else is too tough for him ...
    however, it’s possible to destroy tanks from an ambush to the side ...
  42. 0
    25 October 2022 21: 13
    Quote: ycuce234-san
    Quote: Crispy
    Is it hard to move the levers? Reading is incredible. But they had to do it.


    In 1930, the largest American trucks already had power steering, something that already existed on tractors. Probably, it was worthwhile then to place an order under Lend-Lease for a set of power pneumatics for the T34 - it is simple, cheap and indestructible (just for Soviet equipment and conditions), only noisy and somewhat less accurate.

    Good suggestion, especially considering how much time has passed. Tankers of the 40s thank you.
  43. 0
    25 October 2022 21: 16
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    The theory of reliability in your interpretation is emasculated. Unreliable postulates are declared. More complex mechanisms have lower loads on parts, less loaded components are more durable, and therefore, as a rule, complex mechanisms are more reliable than simple ones.

    You don't understand the theory itself. With any stock, all elements have their resource. Let the probability of any component be 0,9999 (the probable failure is only each of 10 thousand). Good reliability? But, if there are 100 such elements, then the total ..... Tell me how to multiply 0,9999 by itself 100 times? Can you tell me the result, or did you still learn the multiplication table? And who said that a complex machine is less loaded? It depends on the safety margins of all its elements. Moreover, performance is ensured not by the most reliable, but by the most NOT reliable.
  44. 0
    25 October 2022 21: 54
    Quote: Alf
    WHAT ? 5TDF modernization of V-2? No more questions, the level is clear...

    You prevent a man from making history...
  45. 0
    25 October 2022 22: 15
    The shortcomings of the suitcase became clear later, and at 80 everyone dragged from it, considered it cooler than the GTTD from 80, didn’t have to ride, but liked 80
    1. 0
      25 October 2022 22: 17
      in Bishkil, in the repairman, there were mainly T-64s lol
  46. 0
    25 October 2022 22: 34
    Interestingly, is it possible to replace this engine with another one, or is it not worth the candle?
  47. 0
    25 October 2022 23: 58
    History of the T-64 and T-62

    ... everything is simple - the T-62 (like the T-72) are tanks of war, like their predecessor, the legendary T-34.
    T-64 - tank of parades and peacetime. Complicated and expensive...
    1. 0
      26 October 2022 07: 46
      The T-34 in 1940-1941 did not seem to be a "tank of war" at all. We still use the descendants of B-2 in one form or another for a reason. For 1941, the V-2 was hardly less cool than the 5TD for the 60s.
      1. 0
        26 October 2022 12: 22
        The T-34 in 1940-1941 did not seem to be a "tank of war" at all.

        Do you understand the term "tank for war"?
        Accordingly - a tank for parades, elite units and "peacetime"?
        I think no...

        And the question is - where are the Khokhlyatsky T-64s right now? Knocked out? And why are they not restored and not brought into battle?
        Can not! They cannot be restored in "field conditions" and in "field mobile repair plants". And here it is...
        1. +1
          27 October 2022 08: 18
          I think that you do not understand the level of technical reliability of both the T-34 and the KV in 1941. I hint to you again that at that time the V-2 diesel engine was even more progressive and "advanced" than the 5TD at the beginning of the 60s. The diesel of a similar 5TD scheme was used by the British on the Chieftain. Tank diesel engines with power comparable to the B-2, no one had even after the war a few years later. At best, half of it. Even the M48 first modifications came with gasoline, like the Centurions.
          The shape of the T-34 armored hull is also by no means for lazy people. Actually, in this form, it was no longer repeated in Soviet tank building, at least on mass medium tanks. The only thing that was stupid and primitive on the T-34 was the transmission.
          The T-64s were perfectly used by the LDNR militia, both in 2014 and in 2022. They don’t have to sort out the cabbage soup.
          1. 0
            27 October 2022 11: 12
            I remind you again

            you can not hint anything, you did not understand anything:
            T-62 - only about 20.000 copies were produced.
            T-64 - only 1192 pieces!
            T-72 - at least 25.000 copies.
            1. 0
              27 October 2022 11: 39
              Don't laugh. The title of the article is 2000 T-64s in storage only with us, this is not counting what was left with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
              We are not talking about what should be put into production T-64 or T-80 with this diesel engine or automatic loader. It's about using what you have. The Wallentines, the Lees/Grants, the Stewarts, the Matildas were far from gifts either. At first, there were only armor-piercing shells for the "Englishmen", the owners did not consider it necessary to have fragmentation shells. However, they were taken and fought on them.
              The "tanks of war" in 1941-1942 were T-60s, not T-34s. And even on the Kursk Bulge, it’s good for us if not a third of the tanks in the brigades were T-70s.
              1. 0
                27 October 2022 11: 45
                Don't laugh. The title of the article is 2000 T-64s in storage only with us, this is not counting what was left with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.


                If these tanks were produced in total 1192pcs. Where can there be 2000 of them in Russia?
                Article is fake!!!
                The tank was produced in 1963-68xx at Malyshev -
                Serially produced in 1963-1969, during this time 1192 cars were built.

                read before arguing at least Wiki, experts bl. -
                https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-64
                1. 0
                  27 October 2022 15: 03
                  Where else will you send? The article refers to the T-64 "in general", and not specifically the first modification with a 115-mm gun. What exactly is stored there - we are not supposed to know this. But I would venture to suggest that, first of all, these are the T-64BV, which were produced in the late 70s - early 80s. of the last century, a certain amount of T-64A of the 70s. release.
                  1. 0
                    27 October 2022 15: 24
                    The article refers to the T-64 "in general", and not specifically the first modification with a 115-mm gun. What exactly is stored there - we are not supposed to know this. But I would venture to suggest that, first of all, these are the T-64BV, which were produced in the late 70s - early 80s. of the last century, a certain amount of T-64A of the 70s. release.


                    Do you understand Russian?

                    T-64 in any form released TOTAL 1192cars!
                    After they were modernized during overhauls, they were released from the entire fleet !!!!!!!

                    Bl. and these people here endure the brain! am
                    1. The comment was deleted.
  48. 0
    26 October 2022 01: 21
    T34 is still a "terrible force" today against infantry, armored personnel carriers and "jihad-mobiles" without anti-tank weapons.

    If they are robotized - a separate issue.
  49. -1
    26 October 2022 04: 00
    Replacement for a smoothbore, filter and bi-turbo compressor, additional active protection! And in bo!!!
    1. 0
      29 October 2022 00: 27
      And the chassis broke from overweight.
      And remind me what is the name of KAZ on the T-62?
  50. 0
    26 October 2022 06: 44
    Quote: Nagan
    Quote: Civil
    The main reason for the failure is seen in the shells of 115 mm caliber, or rather in their presence.
    In general, this method of disposal seems almost ideal. And cheaper than at the factory, and for the benefit of the business.
    Quote: Civil
    The same V-55V engine on the T-62 is as old as mammoth tusks. With everyone resulting from 50-60 year old engine problems.

    Leaking oil or coolant? Gaskets, rubber seals, change, and go. And for reliability, since hell knows how many engine hours he left before conservation, it would be nice to capitalize and count engine hours from scratch. Or to stick a new motor from the T-72, most likely not much more difficult than to stick a 2106 motor into a "penny".

    Old tanks have motor hour meters, I don’t know about new ones. Do not stick another motor into 64ku - the height will not allow it. Thanks to this, 64 was at one time the lowest tank.
  51. +2
    26 October 2022 07: 43
    Yeah, for some reason the LDNR is also not embarrassed by this engine when T-64s fall into their hands. Learn the materiel - everything about 5TD/6TD was described in the Ministry of Defense documents. The sights on the T-64 were better than on any T-72 before modernization.
  52. 0
    26 October 2022 07: 56
    The T-72 and T-90 have an automatic loader, which is simpler. And the T-64 and T-80 have a loading mechanism. The mechanism can accommodate 28 shells versus 22 for a machine gun, but it also has its drawbacks. Including - the mechanism is more capricious, requires a more trained crew, that is, in the T-64 the requirements are higher not only for the training of the driver, but also for the rest of the crew members.
    1. 0
      26 October 2022 18: 20
      If you go into battle - yes. And if in a counter-guerrilla operation or at checkpoints, it’s cheap and beautiful.
  53. 0
    26 October 2022 15: 55
    As long as there is no remote control on the tanks, there is nothing for them to do at the front.
  54. The comment was deleted.
  55. +2
    27 October 2022 11: 57
    Author: Evgeny Fedorov


    author bl. T-64 tanks were produced in TOTAL 1192 units for 1963-69 at the plant named after. Malysheva in Kharkov. They were never mass produced anywhere else. Only modernized during major repairs -

    Where did you get 2000 of them in Russia?
    Where from ?!
    Before writing fakes, we should start understanding the topic...
    1. 0
      12 November 2022 21: 46
      Quote: Rus2012
      A TOTAL of 64 T-1192 tanks were produced in 1963-69 at the plant named after. Malysheva in Kharkov. They were never mass produced anywhere else.


      Actually, obvious from the context of the article, the author writes about tanks type T-64, collectively about all modifications produced before 1987. And about the T-64 (object 432), of which there are 1192, and about the T-64A with T-64B, produced in quantities of more than 12,5 thousand.
  56. 0
    27 October 2022 14: 02
    Naturally, the question arises: how does the Ukrainian Armed Forces fight with the descendants of the T-64? Simply because over the past thirty years they have diligently refined their unique diesel


    About the “engine” and how they worked on it there and how they “modified” it and about what problems there are.

    7 10 very interesting detail about heating
  57. +1
    27 October 2022 17: 52
    Most likely, the T-62s are used because the deadline for disposing of the ammunition for this tank has come, and if they are disposed of at a factory, it is more expensive than in a natural way. That is, savings are evident. The second reason is that the T-64 uses an APU, and errors in identifying its identity are possible, which can lead to losses. Whoever fired first gets the slippers. The tanks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine use the NATO recognition system, they know whose tank is in front, but the Russian Armed Forces have problems with this.
  58. 0
    27 October 2022 17: 54
    "... the 5TDF engine, the main curse of the T-64 of the Soviet period. This diesel engine, unique in its characteristics, was ahead of its time not only in the USSR, but also in a number of Western countries..." in the West there is a similar one from MAN.
  59. 0
    28 October 2022 09: 19
    On the issue of T-64 in storage.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1095829.html?ysclid=l9s1vspuy6213571623
  60. 0
    28 October 2022 19: 23
    No spare parts from Ukraine, simple.
  61. +1
    29 October 2022 00: 25
    The idea of ​​many “experts” that the T-62 is a replacement for the BMP is puzzling.
    Are you out of your mind?
    The tank is not able to replace an infantry fighting vehicle due to the fact that it does not have the necessary power reserve and the ability to transport the wounded and property of squad soldiers.
    What's the difference: they ride on armor, they don't... At least ride under a tank!
    Where do you propose to stow the wounded, ammunition, and equipment? To the tower?
    Okay, let’s say our Russian Federation will take additional trucks from somewhere.
    But, nevertheless, the tank will not travel even 10 km before the chassis fails. It will be fixed. But soon it will break again. Because it's a fucking TANK! He should not carry infantry.
  62. 0
    30 October 2022 11: 47
    They should be remotorized... if the V-94 doesn’t fit with the T-72, even in the overcooked engine compartment, then you can try, say, to install a souped-up version of the Yamz-840. for sports trucks they say up to 800+ horses are fired up. the resource may not shine, but it will do for an ersatz tank
  63. 0
    30 October 2022 20: 09
    Yes, even without an engine at all. Very durable decoys. Without an engine, fuel and ammunition, it will not burn, which means they will shoot at it and shoot at it. Also pour concrete into the fighting compartment.
  64. The comment was deleted.
  65. 0
    1 November 2022 12: 40
    Interestingly, remotorization of the T-64 is not being considered?
  66. 0
    1 November 2022 12: 49
    Quote: Rus2012
    author bl. A TOTAL of 64 T-1192 tanks were produced in 1963-69 at the plant named after. Malysheva in Kharkov. They were never mass produced anywhere else. Only modernized during major repairs


    English Wikipedia gives a completely different figure - 13000 tanks. And he points out that in 1995 there were 4000 tanks in storage in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64
    And this is more like the truth, in the USSR they did not waste time on trifles...
  67. The comment was deleted.
  68. 0
    3 November 2022 10: 31
    Quote: Engineer
    Torment in another. He loves oil, needs heating already at +5, an extremely unsuccessful air cleaner.

    We never started them without heating at all. Neither in winter nor in summer. Zampotech forbade it. Only through the pre-heater. And you can make a comedy about the procedure for washing the air filter. Half a day of fuss for one filter! A special bath for him, a special detergent... What fun!
    1. 0
      3 November 2022 10: 38
      And it's also very noisy when moving. Soft, but noisy... This is iron on iron! It grinds, whistles, crunches, a truly unbearable sound. But this is from the outside. Unmasking sound. Together with the screeching engine, it’s also a cacophony!)) You can’t really hear it in the tank itself, of course... We had ARVs based on the T-55, so compared to our whistles, they moved almost silently.
  69. 0
    12 November 2022 21: 26
    There are some strange stories about the deputies of technical experts and the lack of personnel.
    If we take the deputy technical engineers of the old Soviet school, then they trained for the T-64 in Omsk, and in Kyiv for the T-72, i.e. the majority of the Soviet "sixty-four" during the division should have gone to the Russian Federation.
    If we take modern personnel... Do they even exist after Serdyukov’s reforms? Has anyone ever trained normal deputy technical engineers? And if they are not there, then what difference does it make what tanks they are not for?

    In terms of complexity, the T-64 for deputies and crew is a retelling of tales from Ural patriotic publications.
    As a deputy technical technician in my main specialty, I can assure you that both in terms of the volume of maintenance and the time standards for repairs, the T-64 is easier for a deputy technical technician.

    The T-64 chassis is no more difficult for the crew. Including an ejection cooling system, which for some reason should make the deputies' heads spin. It's as simple as a sledgehammer, has no moving parts and requires no maintenance. In contrast to the fan on the T-72 with a separate mechanical drive and the need to adjust the clutch slip.
    The T-64 (or rather, the T-64B) was more advanced, and therefore more complex, in terms of its sighting system. But, excuse me, the sighting system that provides the vehicle’s firepower is not the part of the tank that you should skimp on.

    By the way, both sides of the conflict have been fighting with T-64 tanks since 2014. So to speak, it is the main “horse” of the tank forces of both sides. And after that there is no shame in saying "5TDF is a fully functional diesel engine, but not for long and not for combat conditions."?
  70. 0
    16 November 2022 13: 43
    On the issue of bringing the 64 T-XNUMX tanks available at the storage bases into combat-ready condition in order to send them to the NVO zone.
    Subject sucked from the finger. The author himself cites data that there are 10,5 thousand Russian-made tanks in storage - contemporaries of the T-64 (7,5 thousand T-72 and more than 3 thousand T-80). This number of tanks is enough to equip 30 divisions. The number is fantastic.
    The idea that instead of T-62 tanks removed from storage, it is advisable to use T-64 tanks. also appeared without taking into account the experience of the combat use of the T-62 tanks and more modern T-72, T-80 and T-90.
    Based on my combat experience (Lebanon 1982), I already wrote about this in the comments to two articles: “Slovenia hands over M-55S tanks to Ukraine: what are they like?” and “Why doesn’t the GABTU want to repair equipment?” These tanks in modern conditions should be used in different ways, based on tactical tasks.
    My combat experience allows us to conclude that the more modern T-72 and T-90 tanks are good in all respects in the offensive and in mobile defense. It is problematic to use them for positional defense and for long-term cover of checkpoints, since firing from a cannon is possible only when the engine is running, otherwise the automatic loader will not work.
    It is not a fact that, having found the enemy (infantry or armored vehicles), you will have time, with well-charged batteries or high air pressure, to start the engine (while unmasking the location of the tank with thick clouds of smoke), load the desired type of projectile, point the gun and fire.
    This is at a positive air temperature, but what if it happens in winter? Then what, start the heater and wait 10-15 minutes until the engine warms up, and then start the engine and shoot? Or keep the engine warm for days and weeks? The advantage of the T-55 and T-62 tanks on this issue in positional defense over the T-72 and T-90 is undoubted, but there is no need to talk about the T-64.
    The heater on the T-64 tank must be started already at an air temperature of +5 (I have experience in their operation for more than 4 years). By the way, if anyone does not know, in the east of Ukraine the temperature has already set below +5 degrees.
    Comments on the need to use T-64 tanks in the NWO are unnecessary.
  71. 0
    25 November 2022 19: 22
    In the text we replace TSa T-62 with T-34-85. Well, or God forbid on the T-54. The arguments are the same. And we get another wunderwaffle.
    Aren’t you ashamed to discuss this topic in 2022?
  72. -2
    26 November 2022 13: 48
    All scrap metal to the front!

    But seriously? Is it easy to think and estimate the motivation of the tank crew?
    Any mobilized driver will be happy to shut down the engine of his tank even before arriving at the front. And the rest of the crew will help him with this. Because they are not at all eager to go into battle using such ancient equipment.
  73. 0
    18 December 2022 21: 09
    Our military-industrial complex was designed for the modernization of the T72 with the T 72B3, which justify both the performance characteristics and the financial performance!))
  74. The comment was deleted.
  75. 0
    19 January 2023 07: 27
    Quote: stankow
    Commenting on your post is only to spoil :))) You should sculpt plasticine tanks with your son, pulled the match out of the tower, stuck it on the other side and drove forward again. How easy is it for you :)

    I suppose you can, of course, delve into the control program by making the so-called Stage 1, removing the environment, lowering the injection time of the injectors and the pressure of the turbine (if there is one), if not, then reducing the air intake inlet