Well, honestly, I prefer to face a T-55 instead of a BMD-4. After all, it’s always better to reach a point on the map and shoot at moving enemies, than to reach a point on the map to receive a missile or several APDS from the side because a BMD-4 reached a better point on the map thanks to its speed.
It isn’t in reality. I’ve dropped 2 nukes recently using the Russian 9.3 lineup, and the T-64 regularly bounces/stops most APFSDS rounds from its BR. The T-64A also has better elevation speeds.
If a very common round at 9.3 like DM33 bounces then the shot was criminally bad to begin with. Against rounds like that your only armor is in turret cheeks.
72A is just a much more rounded vehicle with way less drawbacks.
To be on a similiar level of the T-72A, T-64A should have a modification for the 1975 upgrade package. It has new stabiliser, autoloader, etc. Also should have the parts of previous upgrade packages, which would yield increase turret armor and 1972 FCS TPD-2-49 and TPN-1-49-23.
The improved version also has a NSVT on turret.
Additionally other improvements for T-64A were Tucha smoke grenades, rubber side skirts, 6TDF engine in 1983 (T-64AM), K-1 ERA in 1985 (T-64AV).
In my opinion the current version could go to 9.0 (It’s barely a T-64A anyway, being a lot closer to early T-64 base variants). To replace 9.3 could be a T-64AMV with K-1, 6TDF engine, better FCS and everything else to be on par with the T-72A (even slightly better with 1000hp engine).
I think this would be better than the current implementation because after all, the T-64 was meant to be a heavier tank for tank regiments with better capability and the T-72 was meant for lighter mechanized regiments.
lol
I agree that USSR 9.0 and 9.3 are some of the best in the game. But that brings nothing to the argument.
This is what Gaijin sees:
For every nuke getter in a T-64A, there seems to be more with quite the negative KDR.
just make T-72A and T-64A have same armor by making textolite realistic, at least at their BR cus otherwise 11.7 material will become vulnerable even to 540mm pen APFSDS.
They both have 110/100mm steel and 100/105mm textolite, so protection should only slightly be in favor of T-72A. But T-64A’s textolite is underperforming, so…
The problem is that the T-72 is undertiered — it really belongs at 9.7. Its armor is way too effective for 9.3. I’m speaking from my own experience playing it.
Aside of armor, it doesn’t really have other qualities that stands out, rounds being OK because it mainly faces things that are squishy, else it has possibly the weakest ammunition in terms of angle penetration at 9.3, sight zoom level is low enough to pixel hunt targets above 800m, hadn’t seen people perform incredibly well in it yet. A lot of things are much better overall, chinese type 96 at the same br just better everywhere, more gun depression, 3bm42 equivalent ammunition, better reverse speed only exchange for slightly worse armor profile but can be offset by playing it hull down, used to have around 5KD in this thing which for me is not possible for T-72 which I only managed to have 2.0. Only good T-series I’ve played is the T-64B lol it can’t be in the same br as the T-72, one of them clearly better, that will be asking it to be moved up to 10.0.
People focusing on armour are simply missing the meta of those BRs - IFV and missile slingers. Hence one of the reasons I’ll always take 279 as first spawn in front of T-72A / T-64A, it’s just mobile and can reverse to save itself. T-72A/T-64A is always one wrong turn from driving itself into a situation it can’t get away from.
Edit: Also, armour = / = survivability.
I can only tell you how much I enjoy the vehicle. As for their stats, you can pretty much sum them up by recognizing most players have a below 1KD. In every game I play, each team has at least half to nearly two-thirds of their team negative in kills to deaths.
The Lineup is outstanding and versatile. Sure, the T-64A isn’t good at everything, but that’s okay.
I wish I had that 279 :(
1 Like