Get 68% off NordVPN! Only $3.71/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.com/binkov or use a coupon binkov
@pyeitme5083 жыл бұрын
Cool thanks for telling
@LittleRamsies3 жыл бұрын
Could Modern 🇰🇷 survive the 50s Korean War and take the whole peninsula???
@edgeldine34993 жыл бұрын
I know your using published (official) numbers but I know for a fact that the Abrams can go much faster than the stated speed limit. I can assume much the same for the others. Although it has a different style engine. I know a tanker who swears he was going 80mph in one and he was still accelerating. I also understand that yes your more likely to blow a track doing that speed.
@julianshepherd20383 жыл бұрын
Laughs in drone
@kmwong17863 жыл бұрын
NordVPN has just moved all operations to US ... will you trust them when all hardware is in US?
@unclebrat2 жыл бұрын
The T-14 has fabulous stealth technology. No one has spotted one yet.
@bernardomontell8732 жыл бұрын
Hilarious 😂
@mikekyto2 жыл бұрын
Lol
@MrFlimflamyfan20202 жыл бұрын
lol
@Brommear2 жыл бұрын
This comment makes me think of the British officer speaking to a soldier: Officer: I did not see you at camouflage parade this morning. Soldier: Thank you sir.
@gilanorodrigues70492 жыл бұрын
Lol
@Chris-ew9mh2 жыл бұрын
I can only imagine a column of headless T-14's wandering around without a turret looking for repairs...LOL
@Marktheburrito2 жыл бұрын
Rather have that then a couple dead crewmen in my tank
@Bustermachine2 жыл бұрын
@@Marktheburrito The concept isn't without merit. Whether the current Russia can actually pull it off on the other hand . . .
@TheGlen0072 жыл бұрын
😆😆😆😆😆🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧
@nickgehr84082 жыл бұрын
@@Marktheburrito if the tank tosses its turret the crew wont be feeling very good....
@Cybersharky_2 жыл бұрын
@@nickgehr8408 Dont think they'll be feeling much of anything at all lol
@Annonymous02837452 жыл бұрын
You know why they call it the T-14 right? Because they can only afford to build 14 of them.
@mawdeeps76912 жыл бұрын
the T is for towed for when it's outta gas or breaks down
@schiefer11032 жыл бұрын
May be incorrect but I hope you are right mate.
@mawdeeps76912 жыл бұрын
@@schiefer1103 google the series of mechanical failures its had
@lemon398452 жыл бұрын
@@mawdeeps7691 I bet those ukrainian tractors will do the towing
@haraldhimmel56872 жыл бұрын
@@mawdeeps7691 What series? I found one example, which may or may not have been part of a towing demonstration. The tank was able to leave the scene under its own power afterwards.
@gust0o2 жыл бұрын
Yes, but how does it fare against tractors?
@specialnewb98212 жыл бұрын
We will never know as it appears to be too afraid of the tractors to operate in the area.
@specialnewb98212 жыл бұрын
@12JK4FFG it did not. The guy driving it accidentally put the brake on and didn't know how to take it off.
@specialnewb98212 жыл бұрын
@12JK4FFG yes. I'm not trying to make Russia look good. Also if it's the incident I'm thinking of it was a parade rehearsal that it got stuck. My source is a Task & Purpose video.
@specialnewb98212 жыл бұрын
@12JK4FFG i 100% believe russia is shit at training people
@maxmeh23422 жыл бұрын
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Yeah, the same way the Yamato ruled the waves when it was built. LOL
@mexicangovernment23052 жыл бұрын
Yeah so the allies ended up resorting to the use of aircraft to take it down.
@maxmeh23422 жыл бұрын
@@mexicangovernment2305 I wouldn't say "resorted". The allies used a weapon system the DID rule the battlefield and waves of the future. By the time of WWII, Battleships were relics of a bygone era. Today, manned tanks are relics.
@mexicangovernment23052 жыл бұрын
@@maxmeh2342 Well no, they aren't really relics, they are just not prepared for the current era
@StrikeNoir105E2 жыл бұрын
@@maxmeh2342 The Ukrainians themselves are proving that manned tanks are not relics, if they're using them to better effect than the Russians.
@Raptor7472 жыл бұрын
Hey now, that's not fair to the Yamato. Yamato was at least in full service and actually saw action (and even did critical damage to an escort carrier from very long range). The Armata is basically just a pathetic propaganda prop at this point.
@T33K3SS3LCH3N3 жыл бұрын
A former German tank designer interviewed on the channel of Panzermuseum Munster said that the idea of unmanned turrets was well researched, but western engineers never liked it much (outside a few ill-fated attempts like the concepts leading up to the M60 Starship). It had too many practical issues for simple things, like no longer having the option to stick your head out of the turret to look at something that's at a bad angle for a camera. The designer also emphasised that Armata's size is now much more comparable to western tanks than the former Soviet designs.
@antiglobaljoel5322 жыл бұрын
It's famous for eating crew members appendages.
@alexburke18992 жыл бұрын
I don’t think this tank actually exists maybe 1 or 2
@red94mr282 жыл бұрын
@@alexburke1899 It's the same old story. The Russians crow about their new being more advanced than their Western counterpart. Then they can only afford to produce 4 or 5 of them, same as our military industrial complex's technology demonstrators.
@Seth9809 Жыл бұрын
Jordan literally has a unmanned turret, based on a M60 or something. The technology is totally possible for the US, it's just dumb.
@tominmtnvw Жыл бұрын
Do United States is going to upgrade the Abrams with an automatic turret. Check the news.
@killer3000ad2 жыл бұрын
Russia has a large modern military. However the large part isn't modern and the modern part isn't large.
@StrikeNoir105E2 жыл бұрын
Well said
@cejannuzi2 жыл бұрын
Yeah but using F-22s to bomb CIA rogue ISIS cavemen makes your panties wet, doesn't it?
@Emporiumtutorial2 жыл бұрын
They have tech probably more advance than Nato by now cuz nato almost abolished all military due to peace and no needed intervetionsm althoug Russia has problems with mass producing stuff if they do they will overtrun power to their side
@jurajsintaj66442 жыл бұрын
@@Emporiumtutorial how would a country with the economy of Texas be able to develop technologies rivaling NATO?
@ussindianapolis487 Жыл бұрын
the only thing that russia has that is not completely worthless is propably Su-35.
@DrCruel2 жыл бұрын
I guess you'll see a lot of them on any future battlefield in which they are used. You'll be able to easily locate them from the long columns of smoke and the fires from fuel and ammo cookoff.
@teddyd.50742 жыл бұрын
I hear the T14s are incredibly capable when being towed by Ukrainian tractors
@VladRadu-tq1pg2 жыл бұрын
@@teddyd.5074 of course , ruski strong, vodka power
@danielwang51042 жыл бұрын
@@teddyd.5074 They are not even used lololol
@Brian-px9gu2 жыл бұрын
@@perc7226 like the Russian army.
@benjimain62 жыл бұрын
@@Brian-px9gu compared to US' military perhaps. No European army unfo will be able to combat the Russians for now (at least until Germany finishes it's 100B euro upgrade next year).
@uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweug38763 жыл бұрын
Tank producer:Soo what kinda tank you want? Russia:Small head tanks but thicc body
@themc.kennyshow65853 жыл бұрын
AH AH! Osas!
@_Matsimus_3 жыл бұрын
T-14 Im’ard’a
@radenprasetyo82343 жыл бұрын
No
@namesurname6243 жыл бұрын
What
@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia6723 жыл бұрын
Why every military video i see you in the comments
@Zulikas693 жыл бұрын
@@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia672 well he is a military enthusiast and was in British army driving IFV or tank, or both (can't remember) and today belongs to Canadian artillery corps/army/brigade (don't know exactly how to call it). He also have youtube channel dedicated to military stuff (sometimes non military video also).
@SSstormwalker13 жыл бұрын
@Matsimus is just salty that a puppet is crushing him in views and making bank off video sponsors.
@KripkeSaul2 жыл бұрын
As long as the Russians cannot fix their logistics, their mighty tanks barely make it out of the garage.
@Fucklesticks Жыл бұрын
7 months later: Russia being routed, bringing back T62s from half a century ago, throwing untrained old men into trenches with a single magazine... Yeah they're fucked.
@LittleZakie2 жыл бұрын
will it break the record on highest turret ever launched?
@Oxley0162 жыл бұрын
Well it is much lighter and with a roughly equal ammunition load. Should make it easier to propel even higher than all previous turrets.
@LittleZakie2 жыл бұрын
@Skawei oi, russian bot, looks like you really don't know much about anti tank ammunitions. You can destroy any kind of tank in a single hit, the thing is where you hit it and how strong the projectile is
@CivilWarWeekByWeek3 жыл бұрын
I’m guessing not because Putin can only be in one tank at a time.
@comraderoman42993 жыл бұрын
That sounds like foreshadowing in a bad action movie lol
@outdooradventureHungary3 жыл бұрын
Putin isnt chuck norrys
@alchemist68193 жыл бұрын
Hey you're that guy who comments on WW2 Channel, am I right?
@CivilWarWeekByWeek3 жыл бұрын
Rajesh Kathiriya Yes I do do that
@qabbala10153 жыл бұрын
That's what he wants you to think
@videomaniac1082 жыл бұрын
Russia initially embarked on a massive program to equip its forces with this tank but never got beyond the production of a few prototype tanks and then changed its tune, saying that its current tanks were competitive with NATO tanks and that it would just modernize its existing tanks. This is strikingly similar to the hype about the Su-57 and then Russia's backtracking that the Su-35 was good enough for its defense needs but then has come out now saying that its going to develop its latest and greatest Su-75. I think what we are seeing with this country is an attempt to create halo weapon systems with which to dazzle unwary potential arms customers in the international market. We've seen its overhyped and underperforming missile defense systems that get defeated by Western technology when operated by Russia's customers. Russia is like an international used car salesman, let the buyer beware.
@anguswaterhouse92552 жыл бұрын
Aye all these people talking about how the greatest stealth plane is a LITERAL PIECE OF WOOD IN A SHOWROOM IN RUSSIA
@TheGlen0072 жыл бұрын
Perfect couldn’t say it any better🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧
@lukesalisbury60312 жыл бұрын
^^Imagine being able to read the future
@johanmetreus12682 жыл бұрын
Main problem with all the new systems is that Russia, while a huge country, has an economy on par with say, Spain in size. They have the skill and tech to put them together, but then the money bags are empty so back to the old stuff... again.
@bermanmo62372 жыл бұрын
I live in California. Even our economy is bigger than Russia. If we were a nation, we would be have the sixth largest economy in the world. Ironically, the video showed a large number of T-72. The tank that Russia can really afford. They are even putting a large number of more advanced T-80 and T-90 in storage. Only the armored units in the Western Military District facing NATO have all T-80 and T-90. All other armored units in the rest of Russia are mostly upgraded T-72, ex. T-72B3.
@phille76692 жыл бұрын
The T72s turret ejection system is working perfect in Ukraine.
@momoted15122 жыл бұрын
Indeed. Reliability rate of over 80%. And people said Soviet tanks aren't well-built, aye?
@cejannuzi2 жыл бұрын
Yeah wow Ukraine WINNING yeah. LOL.
@mdl24272 жыл бұрын
@@cejannuzi are you upset that Russia isn't in Kyiv yet?
@thebrowser67582 жыл бұрын
@@mdl2427 they are in kyiv but only their destroyed tanks are
@vladraduandrei52272 жыл бұрын
@@cejannuzi nah botski russia winning so much, you chaps in kiev already right ? what was it 3 days ?
@gabrielchad4472 жыл бұрын
The answer is no for three reasons. Reason 1: the Russian military can't afford to buy very many of them, so it's highly unlikely that they'd play a decisive role. Reason 2: the Russian military has clearly demonstrated that they do not understand armored or aerial combat in the least and, as such, any vehicle they deploy is going to be significantly less effective. Reason 3: the Armata has very good crew safety, but it's even more prone to a mission kill by shooting the turret than even older Soviet tanks or NATO tanks.
@michaelmazowiecki91952 жыл бұрын
Just add that the Armata uses western high tech which is now sanctioned.
@winniethepooh_june4_19892 жыл бұрын
Bro then why don't u just invade russia? If it's so weak !! Russian military may not have good logistics in ukraine but it has an excellent Domestic logitics/
@michaelmazowiecki91952 жыл бұрын
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 what Russia has is massive stocks of equipment and supplues, numbers and a primive barbarity willing to cause massive loss of life and infrastructure.Russia should be given a big taste of its own medicine by bombardment of its military bases , ships, rail communications, fuel terminals and hubs all the way to Moscow.
@winniethepooh_june4_19892 жыл бұрын
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Yup!
@theTutenstien2 жыл бұрын
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 hmm maybe because russia has nukes? Tho probably 90% of them wont even work because it costs shit ton of money to maintain but still has nukes
@olbradley3 жыл бұрын
Well, only one way to find out! *_Looks at the Caucuses_*
@w3463 жыл бұрын
Lol true
@goat32253 жыл бұрын
Only azerbaijan and armenia still has to be attacked yet! Let's go!
@w3463 жыл бұрын
@@kaichiohno he's right. Russian tanks got annihilated in karabakh by Turkish drones. Search it up if you don't believe me.
@MidwestDIY3 жыл бұрын
Gaius Wyrden I can only imagine what American heavy drones will do to Russian military equipment (Predator C1, MQ reaper 9, 25, X47, etc), I think the world saw the ineffectiveness of Russian anti aircraft weapons in 2020 ( Syria, Libya and now Azerbaijan) a 50k drone missile destroys 115 million S300 or 13 million Pantsir S1
@ALP8393 жыл бұрын
@@MidwestDIY There were no S-300 or Pantsir in Armenia, they just use Osa-AKM of Soviet origin. You should not believe all of the propaganda you read.
@vacefron78352 жыл бұрын
Honestly its hard to feel threatened by this tank when they cant produce enough of them to even equip a brigade. Tbh i think its going to take them at least 10 years to make it in large enough numbers for it to be their mbt and by that time its going to be obsolete.
@philipgates9882 жыл бұрын
In WW2 everyone in the US Army was afraid of the German Tiger Tank. The strategy was to avoid it and let Air superiority deal with them.
@filmandfirearms2 жыл бұрын
It's possible the T-14 is just an example of what Russia usually does. Take a concept, like an unmanned turret, and push it as far as it can possibly go, then pare it down to something practical. What that would mean is that the Armata family is going to be used as a platform from which Russia will build a more practical tank with things like an unmanned turret and a hard kill APS
@philipgates9882 жыл бұрын
@@filmandfirearms I agree. Create the ultimate tank then make it affordable through sacrificing some design elements, all the while dovetailing it’s capabilities with your overall doctrine. It is the ultimate armor fighting vehicle.
@justakettlehelm16732 жыл бұрын
@@philipgates988 no. This is a common myth. American troops carried bazookas and would often either wait for the panzer to stop or they would ambush the panzer from the sides. The panzer was also not feared by the Sherman as it was able to easily outmaneuver the panzer and hit it from the side since the panzer's only 2 strengths are heavy frontal armor and a big gun. Everything else about the tank is a result of being hyped up by Wehraboos and hollywood movies, and in reality is actually completely garbage.
@philipgates9882 жыл бұрын
@@justakettlehelm1673 And I agree that missile technology will continue to wreak havoc on large assets.
@maotse-dung97173 жыл бұрын
Of course T-14s will rule the modern battlefield. All 10 of them.
@michaelwest93113 жыл бұрын
Yep. For about 10 minutes.
@alfreddupont12143 жыл бұрын
Yup that's the true problem for Russia. Having the best tank in the world is irrelevant if you can't afford its mass production.
@mochiii6083 жыл бұрын
@@alfreddupont1214 they can afford it, but corruption and its stupid arms industry, and i mean state owned companies, they were proven to be less effective and cause more problems
@victork5153 жыл бұрын
All 2 of them. 3 tanks broke down, 5 more are made of cardboard and plasticine :))
@ganonstonebreaker42313 жыл бұрын
@@mochiii608 considering their economic health? Not really. The Saudis have done a lot of damage, the result of US fracking technology leaving the kingdom very uncomfortable about their sole major export. Russia unfortunately is left in the blast radius. You are right about state owned arms industries though, bureaucracies and efficiency don't go together.
@unclezlatin14953 жыл бұрын
For all the military specialists here: Have fun arguing with each other
@stastu64843 жыл бұрын
Theres so many "weapons experts" and "test drivers" in the comment section
@jc.11913 жыл бұрын
I take offense to that, we fight now! 🤣 Jk
@f96583 жыл бұрын
War thunder couch commandos
@belgianfried2 жыл бұрын
lololol
@CorvusCorax.2 жыл бұрын
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Ukraine: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@jaken0052 жыл бұрын
Bayraktar has entered the chat
@danielcadwell98122 жыл бұрын
None were sent into Ukraine.
@theTutenstien2 жыл бұрын
@@danielcadwell9812 yeah because there isnt enough of them because russia cant afford
@SB-ie8jn2 жыл бұрын
What T14....They can't make it. Its still not in production.
@Violent2aShadow3 жыл бұрын
I love how Blinkov diplomatically handled Crimea on the map.
@5hiftyL1v3a3 жыл бұрын
time?
@asspukeshit3 жыл бұрын
@@5hiftyL1v3a 22:50
@mostlymessingabout3 жыл бұрын
@@asspukeshit Crimea is independent country 🤩... red for Soviet
@apotato62783 жыл бұрын
@Ozymandias Nullifidian Well that's hardly true. Russia has only owned Crimea since 1783. That's a shorter time than the U.S has existed. The fact that Russia has decided to "Take back" Crimea is simple politics. Sevastopol has a massive warm water port, something Russia has always desired. So to get this warm water port they wrongfully invaded an independent country. Russia is in the wrong here. And always will be.
@DrCruel3 жыл бұрын
@@apotato6278 To be fair, he did say crime is Russian territory. Most of Russia's neighbors would agree.
@lindsaycole84092 жыл бұрын
"Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No, because they can't afford to make them, and never will be able to.
@esashaik70833 жыл бұрын
All tanks look badass until they hear a drone flying over. Tank:Why do I hear boss music?
@apple222sickly3 жыл бұрын
all drones rest in the sky until they hear the air defense Jets come in
@esashaik70833 жыл бұрын
@@apple222sickly what happens when Turkey equips its drones with air to air missiles to shoot down fighter jets?Because that's exactly what Turkey is planning to do.
@apple222sickly3 жыл бұрын
Esa Shaik Hmmm i wonder why they invented laser warning receivers and countermeasures
@commandergeokam28683 жыл бұрын
@@esashaik7083 yes tgey will put stingers on the ucavs bayractar and ankici but always the fighters will have an edge on uavs because of the stronger radars
@esashaik70833 жыл бұрын
@@commandergeokam2868 Turkeys drones have stronger radars than its F16s
@mr.normalguy693 жыл бұрын
Binkov: *Makes a video on T-14 Armata* Red Effect: *OOOOOHHHHH!*
@phunkracy3 жыл бұрын
RedEffect would tear Binkov's a new one
@heinrichmirgrautsvordir66133 жыл бұрын
@@phunkracy What would he do? Make up even more fake armour values?
@phunkracy3 жыл бұрын
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 wouldn't make basic mistakes
@lamalien22763 жыл бұрын
Red Effect did a way better job of analyzing the T-14s capabilities. He goes into the power train and agility a lot more and takes into account future upgradeability. Binkov sounds like he's guessing on most values. I'd take a middle path between the two for parsimony's sake.
@A_Nice_Guy.3 жыл бұрын
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 Binkov keep making mistake on the T-90M, its true that gunner has a 2nd Gen thermal viewer, but he failed to mention that commander has a 3rd Gen, and by this simple and slight mistake he then erroneously conclude that T-14 (which has 3rd Gen thermal viewer for both gunner and commander mind you) has an inferior targeting system.....what? If you think that's propaganda and T-90M don't have 3rd Gen for the commander you should know that T-90M uses a French made (and latter licensed built) Thales thermal viewer.
@Komainu9593 жыл бұрын
I like these arguments when people say the SU-57 is better than XXXX or the T-14 is better than XXXX. Even if that's true it doesn't matter since both of those examples have serious issues that are delaying them from being built in any significant number. The Me 262 was well beyond the capabilities of aircraft during it's time. It didn't matter because there were just too few of them. The bigger hypothetical isn't if the T-14 is better than it's contemporaries. It's if they can even build them lol.
@Renegade11272 жыл бұрын
Armata has a massive problem. The Javelin mk2 missile. All those sensors on the turret would be taken out, leaving the crew blind. The active defense systems won't be able to stop the Javelins top-down attack.
@mabotiyn2 жыл бұрын
You predicted. Javelin is wreaking havoc in Ukraine
@georgefenrirbitadze47572 жыл бұрын
@@mabotiyn dude there is no armata tanks in Ukraine, Russia sent old t-72 and few dozen t90 (main battle tank of Russia) which are entering just now in 2nd and 3rd convoys. Don't eat up USA propaganda so easily, truth is in the middle
@Meoldson2 жыл бұрын
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Western media hasn't specified which vairiants have been fielded. Also, western media is independent from the government, and therefore isn't propaganda. Our media happily critisizes the government. I wonder if that is the case in Russia? 🤣🤣
@Meoldson2 жыл бұрын
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Also hardly any Armartas have been produced by now (and lets face it, Russia ain't got the cash to make any more!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
@KKSuited2 жыл бұрын
@George Fenrirbitadze because there aren't enough of them and they probably dont work as well as advertised.. Same with su 57s. Russia's modern military is YT propaganda. Stingers and javelins are wrecking their armor. They can't even keep their gas tanks full during an invasion. Imagine believing they're going to field modern battle tanks en masse.
@Ianmundo2 жыл бұрын
You’re still buying into the brochure as if all these systems work flawlessly. In such a corrupt culture as modern Russia, problems with complex systems are hidden or downplayed so that everyone can report a positive result to their immediate superior. The design is impressive at arm’s length but the reality is that most Russian weapons are the products of cutting corners. Then consider who crews these tanks? the quality of Russian forces has been catastrophically overestimated against the obvious facts that they are very poorly paid and training is obviously deficient. If the T14 goes into battle as poorly protected by infantry as the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine, they’ll be handled in the popular manner.
@user-fd1cv9dl2n2 жыл бұрын
as a war in Ukraine shows, this tank doesne fucking exist lol
@alexandermackie76212 жыл бұрын
"Lack of depression in the turret" Yeah, I don't have that problem, they can have some of mine.
@Andrew-Locksley6912 жыл бұрын
Everything he said in this video was pure window dressing !!!!He might have well been talking about specs for the Death Star!
@lqr8242 жыл бұрын
22:56 your map is in error. It colors the Crimean peninsula in the Russian colour.
@saucy7433 жыл бұрын
8:36 that is scary
@vmanrn29062 жыл бұрын
NATO tank: exist in operation T14: does not exist in operation So this is not even a competition. T14 is a nice concept on paper, but Russia does not have the financial power to go from concept to operational use
@00tree2 жыл бұрын
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No because more than likely there won't be enough of them.
@hyperkid3212 жыл бұрын
Seeing this video in 2022 "lmao no"
@hardy20512 жыл бұрын
Their supposed vaunted and invincible T-90s have been destroyed in large numbers daily against Ukrainian with their T-64. Paper tiger is what they are. Their armata will meet the same fate.
@lqr8242 жыл бұрын
23:50 "It's cost seems to be precluding its production in very high numbers." If you think that was a problem before Feb 2022, it's going to become an even bigger problem going forward. Tell me, can they build this without western microprocessors? China doesn't make microprocessors, you know. And I'm not sure it will be a good idea to load the Russian military with Chinese electronics. Every system will have excellent back doors you never find until China decides to turn off the entire Russian military.
@wealthelife2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same thing. Russia has only produced about 20 T-14s to date. And given the financial and technological sanctions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they may not be able to produce very many, if any, for the next decade. Meanwhile Russia's actions will have boosted NATOs military spending by another 1% of GDP or so for the next decade. And since NATOs GDP is much higher than Russia's (and will be relatively less affected by the war and sanctions) the existing spending disparity (NATO spent 12x more than Russia in 2016, so will probably outspend Russia by 20x-25x each year for the next decade) will only increase. Looks like Putin's war will trigger a repeat of how Reagan's military spending v. USSR essentially bankrupted the USSR at the end of the cold war.
@giovanni-ed7zq2 жыл бұрын
@@wealthelife everyone nows first 100 hours of air campaign if war starts. so that t-14 wont survive the air campaign. i think the idea of tank warefare and long lines of ground troops is obsolete idea now. you do that against american airforce, highway of death 2.
@Neion82 жыл бұрын
@@giovanni-ed7zq There's a difference between taking ground and keeping it - tanks are for the second-wave once the air-battle's been won to comb out any remaining hostile forces with less losses than you would get with pure infantry. Or, they should be at least *looks at Russia...* As for defence, a tank is significantly easier to hide than a jet (which normally needs an airstrip+hangars+all the equpiment needed to re-arm, repair and refuel it) - as all you need to do is drive to a position with a decent view and some foiliage, throw a camo net and drape some shrubbery over it - wait a week or so when the airstrikes have died down and the enemy convoys are coming in and then clean off and jump into the tank, fire off a few HE shells to decimate an incoming enemy convoy at many times the range of standard infantry anti-tank weapons - then relocate (while being entirely safe from any small-scale retaliation), cover up the tank and take cover in the 10 or so minutes it'll probably take for the enemy to scramble an airstrike. Also, don't forget that active defence systems exist and can be mounted on tanks now - so it'll take a lot more than a single missile to kill a modern western tank. Throw in the fact that countries like Germany have developed armour which can emulate different heat signitures to throw off enemy targeting/identification and they're far from irrelevent - they just have a lesser role now within combined arms doctrine than they did in previous conflicts.
@Bustermachine2 жыл бұрын
@@giovanni-ed7zq Not many countries can perform that sort of air dominance. Even for the USAF, which considers it a specialty of theirs, it's something that takes immense planning and concentration of resources and is even then only possible due to being a truly world class force.
@oyundashzeveg88832 жыл бұрын
@@giovanni-ed7zq the USAF is going to crumble like a crouton if they are going to fight anyone other than insurgents
@RedneckRapture3 жыл бұрын
Given that the US has already gotten detailed information about the Armata and has developed ammunition that is able to penetrate the Armata's armor, and that the tank rounds for NATO are largely standardized (UK has to be an oddball), I'd say no, it won't rule future battlefields. Add to it that Russia cannot produce enough of them to replace combat losses in the event of a major war and it gets worse. Edit: Alright people, after MONTHS of this comment being up I finally noticed enough to say: UK No longer an oddball and has a smoothbore like all the other cool kids. Armata's even MORE fucked than it was before.
@anguswaterhouse92552 жыл бұрын
Uk no longer an oddball
@oldfrend2 жыл бұрын
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor proof? i doubt the russians would risk their prized new tank when they only have a handful and they're likely to be stolen by some ukrainian farmers and dragged off to poland where NATO would be happy to provide disassembly service.
@oldfrend2 жыл бұрын
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor did i say anything as stupid as fake news? i just wanted sources because i've been following the war pretty closely and i haven't seen anything about T-14s in battle. and hearing rumors is a long way from a firm confirmation, esp. if they haven't captured any, even from reliable sources.
@giovanni-ed7zq2 жыл бұрын
depleted uranium rounds will go through that armata like butter. at 8 million dollars an armata, its just an expensive crematorium.
@justakettlehelm16732 жыл бұрын
@@giovanni-ed7zq as true as that is, the US has been trying to shift away from DU since it's otherworldly amounts of expensive and using it is *technically* a war crime
@staticgrass Жыл бұрын
Lazerpig brought me here. This is comedy gold. "In some regards more advanced than NATO tanks".
@MrPickledede Жыл бұрын
😂😂😂😂
@tomislavblazevic27422 жыл бұрын
Tractor towing hook installed?
@BobbyB19283 жыл бұрын
The Armata won't be standard with the Guards Motorized rifle regiments/tank regiments until the late 2020s-2035. I'd say by 2035. They would have to phase out all the t-90s, 72BMs, and whatever 80Us they have left to make room.
@antoinelachapelle34053 жыл бұрын
They don't have to phase them out at all, they'll supply them on the cheap to Syria, Armenia, Iran, Egypt to further push their influence there without direct involvement.
@BobbyB19283 жыл бұрын
@Antoine Lachapelle They could export them but they would be in service with other countries even if those countries are in Russia's sphere of influence. Or the Russians would supply the leftover vehicles to the reservists or Cat B formations if those still exist (Cat B and C formations did during Soviet times).
@MrTangolizard3 жыл бұрын
Metal 1974 reserve means dumped in a field and left to rot
@coconutshrimp7073 жыл бұрын
And at that point they'll be obsolete
@jamesricker39973 жыл бұрын
By that time that Abrams replacement should be in Frontline service with the American military
@atv1233 жыл бұрын
Everybody gangsta until A-10 Warthog arrives...
@stanleyspadowski2353 жыл бұрын
The GAU won’t penetrate modern tanks.
@Likeaworm3 жыл бұрын
@@stanleyspadowski235 from the top it will and it will definitely fuck the engine bay.
@duanesamuelson22563 жыл бұрын
@@Likeaworm Robert is correct. Even the M1A1 was proof against a hard kill from an A10. Immobilize it yes (which in modern battle means it will become a hard kill). I knew the head design engineer at Chrysler Defense who designed the M1 gun system (who worked for my father before changing companies) as well as the engineer who designed the gau gun drive (my father). It was actually something considered as part of the design and something discussed during the armor tests. Oh and his top speed number for the M1 is way off and low and I assume its off for the others.
@JohnsonMalarkey3 жыл бұрын
@A TV A-10 is a nice stationary target for the Pantsir, BUK-M3, TOR-M2U, S-300, S-350, S-400 and so on. Have a nice day. They can send A-10 to heLL, with just a simple click of a button.
@9140503 жыл бұрын
The A-10 is fairly niche in the modern battlefield, as it is relatively slow and lacks stealth. It's main advantages are cost per mission/hour and ability to stay in an area for a long time (loiter time). It's great for asymmetrical warfare. However, anywhere that expensive modern assets like the T-14 are deployed would also likely have AA support sufficient to deter it. A more likely aerial threat would be smart bombs dropped from high altitude, for example, from an F35.
@christopherreaves6912 жыл бұрын
The last I heard the Russians can't afford to produce the T14,they were going to acquire only 20 copies of each variant,tank,BMP,Wrecker,bridge layer,and command and control vehicle, for a total of 100...
@lqr82421 сағат бұрын
How far have they actually gotten? Have they produced ANY? Are they actually complete with sensors and so on?
@judodavid12 жыл бұрын
Somehow the stories of Russian tank power seem somewhat suspect in light of their struggles with the Ukrainian Foot soldier. Perhaps they were lying to themselves AND everyone else.
@sadmanpranto90263 жыл бұрын
: Dmitri why your hat looks different today ?? : It is made of extra tank round, made one for you too...
@webcrawler97822 жыл бұрын
It's the best ceremony tank ever since it's built for ceremonies only.
@actualyoungsoo2 жыл бұрын
T-14 seem like a great tank on theory, like how communism looks like a savior for humanity on paper.
@Emanon...3 жыл бұрын
So marginally better, and vastly more expensive... Looks like the Rus have learned in the F-35 school of weapons development.
@redneckturtle7713 жыл бұрын
More like the F22... We have the F35 for sales to other countries, the F22 for home defense
@user-dz8wn7mh7w3 жыл бұрын
Technical documentation on stealth technology was recieved from Russia in 1990-s. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev the Russians decided that stealth technology is a dead end and therefore did not develop these technologies
@natureblank14013 жыл бұрын
F-35 technology was bought from Soviet Union. It's Stealth design + formula and the vertical engine. So stop acting like F-35 is the last word in technology Russia had the technology 40 years before the F-35 was introduced LMAO. + F-35 will be absoloute against Russian air defence systems S-400 or S-500. Russia isn't Iraq or Afghanistan my friend.
@natureblank14013 жыл бұрын
@@hurryboi8558 Russians invaded Russia? What you smoking my friend?
@Dallasbird19753 жыл бұрын
@@natureblank1401 A gép gyártását 1978-ban kapta meg a Lockheed modern programokkal foglalkozó részlege, a kaliforniai Burbank-ben székelő Skunk Works. Az első gép 1981-ben szállt fel a Skunk Works 51-es körzet néven elhíresült Groom Lake bázisáról, alig 31 hónappal azután, hogy meghozták a sorozatgyártási döntést. Az első F-117A-t 1982-ben szállították le, a gépet 1983-ban állították hadrendbe és az utolsó Nighthawkot 1990-ben készítették el. A légierő 1988-ig tagadta a gép létezését, majd 1990 áprilisában egy F-117A-t kiállítottak a nevadai Nellis légibázison, ahova több tízezer látogatót vonzott. :P russia 1978 : moszkvics zaporozsec xD
@justbe44812 жыл бұрын
I'm from the future 2022 and I can tell you nope it can't even handle driving down a paved road .
@SVSky2 жыл бұрын
This has aged well!
@sadmanpranto90263 жыл бұрын
"Peace was never an Option"
@andrewtaylor9402 жыл бұрын
“The T-14 is using one generation newer reactive armor plates than those on the T-90” okay so the T-72’s had cardboard and garbage in the reactive panels. The T-90’s had blocks of old rubber. What comes after old rubber in the development tree? Plywood?
@dennismattord15542 жыл бұрын
They have 10 T 14s, just 10. Three are prototypes. They were supposed to have 100 the first year. If people haven't been paying attention, tanks are no longer the weapons they were. Drones are the weapons that will win battles.
@Predator203572 жыл бұрын
Drones didn’t win the Afghanistan War Jokes aside, the T-14 suffers the problems of the Tiger 2, although we might never see how great they are fully, they were so lowly produced that 100 tanks on each front won’t help, maybe win a Skirmish but the war is lost just due to mobility alone
@pierremorris53372 жыл бұрын
I think after witnessing the ineptitude of Russia and how awful they fight, this video is misleading. A battle is won on logistics and soldier training. Russia has neither. I am surprised China has not destroyed them to reclaim back the land russia took. As impressive as their tanks are...they cant even keep them fueled nor supplied. A few simple strikes to Russian ancient railway networks would devastate them. NATO is studying every thing Russia has done during the ukraine war. A simple javelin is devastating these vehicles. Putin has put himself in a very serious bind
@jurgisvalancauskas40062 жыл бұрын
Russia doesn't use T-14 on Russian-Ukrainian war. Mostly T-72, T-80 (Soviet tanks) and some T-90s (developed in Russian Federation). Actually using T-14 in Ukraine and see it crashed on field or burning would have bad effect for whole Russian war PR. And they don't have more than 10 of them anyway
@alfretwell4282 жыл бұрын
I think as we now know there are probably less than 20 Armata tanks been built. I also hear they have failed acceptance trials for the Rus army. Don’t forget the debacle of one breaking down during a military parade.
@Ed-pv6ke3 жыл бұрын
Man this channel provides glimpses past the BS in so many ways.
@natureblank14013 жыл бұрын
This channel is a place for American narratives don't push the blame and act like it's a Russian Propoganda channel Lmao.
@anguswaterhouse92552 жыл бұрын
@@natureblank1401 "American naratives" roughly translates to "i don't like the fact my country would have the literal shit kicked out of it by the USA
@natureblank14012 жыл бұрын
@@anguswaterhouse9255 This applies to both sides, you know perfectly this is a Pro-US chanel full stop.
@troutwarrior67353 жыл бұрын
Very informative! Whenever I need a realistic battle discussion, I come here!
@764563 жыл бұрын
lol me too
@ScarletEdge3 жыл бұрын
In Desert Storm Americans proved that ground army is a sitting duck without Air Superiority. As long as T-14 enjoys safe from air strike battleground then yeah why not.
@gobot4455 Жыл бұрын
At this point, it appears the first foe the T14 needs to beat is the budget
@Swyatogor.75263 жыл бұрын
We can assume that this tank uses steel, but we do not have reliable information about this.
@karolrawski22273 жыл бұрын
It may also be asbestos or polysterene - it all looks the same, when you put paint on it.
@Schnittertm13 жыл бұрын
We should assume that it uses an outer armor layer of steel and internally some kind of composite armor, just like all armor on modern MBT.
@764563 жыл бұрын
@@Schnittertm1 T-90 and T-72 use Nera plates of steel and rubber. Some Steel plates are improved whit other materials. T-80 uses Steel, high arden steel and Polimer/ceramic whit pockets.
@toddabbott7813 жыл бұрын
First of all Russia is struggling to get the new engine working. They are finding that higher technology items are much harder to build than they expected and they are running into massive quality issues and cost overruns. The current prototypes are using an older engine with far less power, so the rated speeds and range are only expected stats if the engine actually lives up to the stats they hoped. The armor on the T-14 around the crew is really good, but the armor on the back half, rear, top... an especially the turret is weak. The tank is massive, but the weight is not that bad, so all the physical armor is only to protect the crew. It is so weak in the back that they added the cages to protect the engines from hits from a simple RPG. The turret has even less armor. They are relying too heavily on their active defenses. They have the same dazzler system that current TOW missiles have been programmed to encode to bypass and their active armor is also bypassed by the new TOW with the addition of a 1 meter rod on the end to prematurely detonate it. They also have their tubes under the turret to shoot down incoming missiles, but they have a VERY limited arc. None of the defenses work against the a sabot round and the new round for the M1A2 Sep 3 is strong enough to pernitrate the armor already, but they will be facing the M1A3 likely by the time they ever deploy the T-14. The active armor and dazzler system is the same s what was on the upgraded T-90 and they still suffered roughly 50% casualties from the TOW BGM-71E in Syria. They sent 30 and lost 10 of them. There is a top down version of the TOW now that would bypass all the active defenses of the T-14. 10% lower armor on the turret!?!? You mean it is only 10%. The armor is only about 1/2 to 3/4" of steal. A 50 cal will rip through it. Russia has stated many times the whole design idea of the tank was armor to protect the crew as the priority and the turret was very vulnerable and that they rely heavily on their active defenses. These tanks are going to be taken out instantly in combat... but the crew will likely survive. This tank is a joke. In the end it will not matter as they have drastically cut orders because the price of oil dropped so low and 80% of their tanks are still the old T-72.
@thatlawnmowerguy93 жыл бұрын
It will do fine, tanks with virtually no armour can still work effectively if they have better mobility/gun.
@toddabbott7813 жыл бұрын
@@thatlawnmowerguy9 Until someone gets a lock on it. It is too easy to take out a tank. An F-35 can carry something like 24 Spear-3 missiles and those would make minced meat of any tank. Russia could not maintain air superiority against the US let alone with the EU added in. After that tanks become pretty worthless.
@paulshearer91402 жыл бұрын
Thanks Binkov. If Russia produced a new generation tank that outcompeted all other tanks by far, however it would never rule the battlefields as Russia simply does not have the money to build any high end military units an any kind of meaningful numbers. Having said that, the Russians do really need the T14 in meaningful numbers, because their current tanks and armoured units are getting absolutely OBLITERATED in Ukraine. It's a horrible situation for 90% of the Russian soldiers who do not even want to be there.
@Norglet3 жыл бұрын
Interesting to see, that especially the newer Gen (at least NATO, don't know for Russia) autocannons are more and more optimized to be able to mission kill the optics of battle tanks, something that was considered in the development of Puma's weaponry and the related precision - if you can't penetrate them that easy anymore, first overfeed hardkill, then destroy sensors, day over.
@statebriga52983 жыл бұрын
And you think you can kill all the sensors with just one hit ? And, then....next move is his
@lukeamato23482 жыл бұрын
This thing is going to drink fuel . I'll be amazed if it could ever make it 20km past the Russian border without having to be refueled
@lexwaldez3 жыл бұрын
The only advantages the Russian tanks had to offer were that they were simple, they were reliable, and they could be made in numbers. T-14 is complicated, expensive, will require a massive investment in training, and they'll never field a full division. It's a paper tank. In perfect conditions without dust and dirt, that tank is going to look pretty good. In the field, I doubt they'll be able to maintain them for any length of time. They made the classic mistake of building a weapon to fight the last war.
@tunisiandom93183 жыл бұрын
déjà vu ... same thing was said about Su-57 for years. "not even 5G", "Over rated" "as stealthy as an elefant in the savanna" and then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters the criticism became "they cant use it" "too sophisticated" "too expensive to purchase" and when the contract for Su-57 was signed and manufacturng began they switched on to the T-14 ... Guys Chill, why are you even talking about costs and performance when the tank is still changing ... it did not pass tests yet, Chill boys XD
@mdeliyski2 жыл бұрын
@@tunisiandom9318 buahahahaha, must be really difficult to even say, what you just did. Russian military equipment is the same as anything Russian. All crap.
@mdeliyski2 жыл бұрын
Dude, Russian tanks were anything but reliable. You were lucky it the POS started.
@lqr82421 сағат бұрын
@@tunisiandom9318 > then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters When did that happen? Can you share a link or something? I've never heard of anyone saying that.
@cttc-chintokastacticalcrap24213 жыл бұрын
I love how T14, a completely new developed tank, is compared against tanks that are already 40 years old.
@burnttoaster63133 жыл бұрын
Man your dumb
@peterstubbs59343 жыл бұрын
And Chally 2 and Abrams would kick its arse
@peterstubbs59343 жыл бұрын
@@burnttoaster6313 Says the man who cant spell "youre"
@Rssika3 жыл бұрын
@@peterstubbs5934 Unlikely, Challenger 2 is getting old. Chinese and japanese MBTs are already ahead of it.
@mariojakel55443 жыл бұрын
@@Rssika how many T14 are in the russian Army and how many get the Army in the future? compare it to number of all T72 Types like the T90(T-72BU) T-72B3.... the T14/T15 are to expensive, a total of 132 T14/T15 is not a lot
@PRODSKY223 жыл бұрын
9:00 those are the smoke launchers and the smaller things on top are the aps banks
@Retly_Ai3 жыл бұрын
Whenever Russia shows a new toy they end up not having the funding so lol
@willkanoff3 жыл бұрын
Just keep telling yourself that LOL
@TheCerebralDude3 жыл бұрын
Will Kanoff They have already stopped producing T-14
@randomeastasian3473 жыл бұрын
Will Kanoff XD because it’s true moron
@willkanoff3 жыл бұрын
@@TheCerebralDude Whatever floats your boat dude....
@TheCerebralDude3 жыл бұрын
Will Kanoff facts float my boat 🚣♀️
@mayuri41843 жыл бұрын
IIRC, I remember Jordan having a tank with an unmanned turret. It's a Chally 1 with an unmanned turret similar to Armata or STH.
@highjumpstudios23843 жыл бұрын
And to date it’s never found a buyer. Even in the Jordanian army.
@mayuri41843 жыл бұрын
@@highjumpstudios2384 Maybe it is because Chally 1 is obsolete. I dunno.
@thundberdbolt_25843 жыл бұрын
The Jordanian army is filled with ariete's today. I guess the challenger 1 with the unmanned turret was indeed obsolete.
@theweirdlookingcat80623 жыл бұрын
I remember seeing a bastardised Challenger 1 that had been turned into an APC some years ago in Combat and Survival magazine
@appleholo23363 жыл бұрын
HMS Belfast the challenger 1 is still used in some countries as supporting tanks
@parzival10543 жыл бұрын
Newest update to Abrams has the gas guzzling turbine replaced with the German leopard Diesel engines. So that’s not a factor anymore.
@MTTT12343 жыл бұрын
Some Russian official is probably now sitting somewhere in an hidden office, his face burried in his hands as Binkov here is so expertly revealing all the aspects of their new tank.
@IceniBrave3 жыл бұрын
He shakes his head, muttering, "It's a puppet, a fucking sock puppet", takes a final shot of vodka, and eats his pistol barrel
@aur4853 жыл бұрын
@@IceniBrave What a shit in your heads?
@HOLOD485513 жыл бұрын
"expert"
@thedreamscripter40023 жыл бұрын
Not really. Binkov is hugely biased towards NATO in all videos when it touches the tech and quality of equipment. So his very slight and inconfident approval of T-14 actually speaks that even he couldn't disagree at how good that tank is, even though he would love to critisize it as much as possible.
@jerromedrakejr93323 жыл бұрын
@@thedreamscripter4002 Exactly!
@Szarko32c2 жыл бұрын
Only in CGI movies... It's a science fiction tank.
@mbtenjoyer94872 жыл бұрын
Lol nope
@Szarko32c2 жыл бұрын
@@mbtenjoyer9487 ok, so send it to Ukraine if it's real. Win the war!
@DINGIR133 жыл бұрын
It will have to make it thru a parade without breaking down first.
@whodywei3 жыл бұрын
It really depends on who has the air superiority.
@Tom-bm2kt2 жыл бұрын
Saint Javelin says no.
@HughMann9893 жыл бұрын
9:08 I have to point out this error, those are just smoke launchers, the afganit aps is the two boxes with a bunch of charges on top of the turret
@bhangrafan44803 жыл бұрын
It is always misleading to compare one isolated weapon with another isolated weapon. All weapons operate within a tactical system of combined arms, command, control, communication and intelligence. All of this has to be considered when comparing one MILITARY and how it operates against another.
@kainhall2 жыл бұрын
6:25 im sure its like ALL russian things..... over-hyped and under-delivering.... . like it probably CAN do 47mph....... but after 10 miles, the tracks fall off or the crew is vibrated / bumped around so hard.... they get knocked out . . and plus.... we now have Ukraine to show us that these tanks DO!!! .... in fact.... suck big butts . . . like..... if russia says something can do 50mph sure, but only down hill, and with a tail wind.... and a fresh engine rebuild..... and a PERFECT crew (that shifted each gear PERFECTLY) . if russia says something has 300mm of armor they are usually including the crew in that figure (because if the driver "absorbs" the round before it blows up the ammo..... thats a win) . ETC ETC ETC ETC . . . . i cant wait till Russia gets its BUTT KICKED by Ukraine........ because then Fab Putin and Russia will not be feared or respected....... . they will be treated like the fools they are (not the civilians.... but EVERY SINGLE politician / person of power) . . however.... i STILL think Putin will be "re-elected"....... even if he looses this war Putin is just THAT BIG!!! of an ego-manic (its why Fab Putin and Trump get along so well) . Fab Putins ego is so big..... he will probably OUT RIGHT kill voters.... if he cant cast enough fake votes / corrupt the vote enough ...... 110% guaranteed he will start jailing / killing his own people (just to "win" ANOTHER election)
@SanBrunoBeacon2 жыл бұрын
The T-14 is a Javelin magnet.
@dakkadakka42363 жыл бұрын
Having none of your offensive weaponry protected by some sort of armour has to have a lot of draw backs... Yes the crew is protected, but if your gun can be completely destroyed by a 25mm bushmaster it doesn’t matter how protected your crew is you may as well not even shown up... not to mention the crazy complex repairs that would be needed...
@Sturminfantrist3 жыл бұрын
What crazy complex repair, its easy, change the Turret ! And dont underestimate the russian industry in case of War they will produce war material in all parts of their "empire" its a big country, dont make the same mistake like the germans in WW" and underestimate the russians
@dakkadakka42363 жыл бұрын
@@Sturminfantrist when did I even talk about the Russian industry or even attack/underestimate them... I simply comment on the massive drawback at having no armour on the turret.. Its Complex because you cannot do in on the roadside.. you will need a heavy crane not to mention logistics to get the million dollar turret to the location of repair.... without damage... if your primary way of fixing the turret is just swapping it out thats fine... but someone.. at some point just going to have to fix the turret...
@yorle65273 жыл бұрын
@@dakkadakka4236 i think its used so the round can penetrate intact before doing too much damage (less shrapnel damage) because most of tank combat casualties are caused by either dead crew or ammo rack blow up.
@dakkadakka42363 жыл бұрын
@@yorle6527 nah, I wouldn't think so as the crew are in their own armoured pod.. so even if the ammo does go up the crew are still safe... It just doesn't make sense to me.. yeah sure no crew are in the turret to be protected... but if you don't have the thing in the turret protected. That thing in the turret being your only form of attack, and it takes a hit it will be damaged and most likely unable to continue fighting in that battle.. where as any nato tank turret takes a hit there is a chance that it will be still be able to fight on..
@yorle65273 жыл бұрын
@@dakkadakka4236 i think the turret is made weak by design, so if an APFSDS hit the turret it will penetrate and go out the other way without causing too much damage. The turret isnt weak in all sides the important parts like the mantlet have a decent armor protection
@markanderson38703 жыл бұрын
And now there's the Challenger 3.
@super_slav_61833 жыл бұрын
only thing that can save challenger 3 from being behind abrams sepv3 , leos and russian tanks is aps
@-exodus-_3 жыл бұрын
@@super_slav_6183 which it has
@stephen25832 жыл бұрын
@@super_slav_6183 and the fact is has the best armour in the world, but thanks everyone else for showing up.
@super_slav_61832 жыл бұрын
@@stephen2583 sure m8, that armour wont prottec against modern ammunition
@stephen25832 жыл бұрын
@@super_slav_6183 Says who? No country in the world has access to british armour so no one in the world can test to see how effective or ineffective their weapons would be. And as the armour is uniquely different from any other armour in the world you cannot make a comparative test.
@briandelaroy16702 жыл бұрын
So in conclusion, the only way to see if the T-14 is going to be combat effective is to have the crew train in tactics then put the T-14 into combat to get real time information to get upgrades or advancements in tactics with the T-14 crews input!
@ondrejdobias6122 Жыл бұрын
Today we can answer the question with simple: No.
@JZ9093 жыл бұрын
I feel like I'm watching a video about the best new battleship design in 1945. Fascinating perhaps, but ultimately probably pretty worthless in a modern conflict.
@worldoftancraft3 жыл бұрын
Did you just cancel the entire idea of "armoured object"?
@schiefer11032 жыл бұрын
Well, tanks aren’t what we like to think pf them as, at least not anymore. However, it is as of yet not possible to replace them because no military has been able to come up with a system that can plug the holes left in the doctrine by removing tanks, so they aren’t dead *yet.*
@comrade-uj5iy3 жыл бұрын
I know the t90 was conceived in the soviet era but it came out in 93 iirc. It surely must therefore be a post soviet era tank?
@FlyxPat3 жыл бұрын
Not if they can’t afford to build any. Same with the Su57.
@trololoev3 жыл бұрын
t-14 already participated in Syria. Also they are commander's tank, you don't need thousands of them.
@FlyxPat3 жыл бұрын
@@trololoev lol is that what they are saying.
@trololoev3 жыл бұрын
@@FlyxPat T-14 can combine all information from drones, planes, infantry etc and give it to every other tank, like T-72BM or t-90MS. Have only armata is like have only officers.
@Outside853 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't count on them ruling any battlefield when military tech has sort of evolved away from the traditional battlefield and either moved towards American-style air superiority or low-tech terrorists tactics. A tank is great to have as support once you've got a position you want to hold onto, but in reality you shouldn't expect to see much tank on tank fighting any more... unless Russia and China decide to have a go at each other.
@TGBurgerGaming2 жыл бұрын
In a short war or a war where enemy air defense's aren't a factor that makes sense. After two years of attrition you can count on America slowly running out air assets and having to be more careful, that doesnt factor in what happens when they can't establish air dominance to begin with.
@anguswaterhouse92552 жыл бұрын
@@TGBurgerGaming The USAF is 12,000 planes overall with 100 f-35's coming off the line every year in peace time which would increase in war. China+russia have less planes than us believe me you don't base your military stratagy around air power unless you're REALLY wanting to dominate
@TGBurgerGaming2 жыл бұрын
@@anguswaterhouse9255 have you seen the simulations for modern air wars? Guided missiles reduce the survival rate to around 3% for pilots regardless of which side you're on. You can expect expensive planes to be used sparingly soon after the first few engagements and replacements to be cheaper and easier to mass produce, only less advanced. There's no way the US establishing air dominance over the South China sea let alone the mainland with any kind of ease. Most simulations show entire carrier groups being lost. Russia would be a similar problem with the added issue of geography. You can't send enough planes to dominate an area that big.
@kordellswoffer15202 жыл бұрын
@@TGBurgerGaming no one said it be easy but it be done, the us and it's allies have absolute air superiority, they would see heavy losses but would in the end completely or near completely control the skies. These situations aren't good arguments as they are usually unfair and stacked against the us forces and unrealistic as that's the whole point of it.
@aaroncabatingan52382 жыл бұрын
@@TGBurgerGaming If these simulations were created by American or Eastern Bloc nations, then you probably shouldn't trust it. For propaganda purposes the Russian and Chinese military liked to hype up their military. The American military on the other hand like to make their own military look weak to ask for more funding from Congress.
@MasterKeyMagic3 жыл бұрын
I know all the sensors are protected but, are they protected enough to still work right after being hit by a high explosive round on the outside? If i was in an inferior tank and i knew my "AP" rounds probably weren't going to pen, I might try blinding the tank by damaging its sensors with HE.
@Nebelkorona3 жыл бұрын
Speed in MPH >_
@kevingray35502 жыл бұрын
It's increasingly unlikely that Russia will be able to produce these tanks other han the few proto types they have now.
@lek86302 жыл бұрын
they arent prototypes, russia already sent 30 of them to army, learn to check fckin information by urself
@woltews2 жыл бұрын
that nordVPN thing has become particularly funny given recent events
@hamzarorick48752 жыл бұрын
T14 never make it past ukraine to face nato. They neeed a seperate tank to defend the the.t14 from being.towed by ukrainen farmers
@TopRunnerUkr2 жыл бұрын
Another unbeatable-on-paper russian weapon.
@SilverShamrockNovelties3 жыл бұрын
Short answer: No. There’s not a nation in the world (Russia included) that can afford to support these tanks in numbers great enough to overcome the fact that NATO will always have air superiority.
@realnapster15222 жыл бұрын
Russia has S400.
@pinochet33173 жыл бұрын
The only good tank is a moving tank
3 жыл бұрын
Bob Semple best tank?
@Nobody-ob5od3 жыл бұрын
Lol yup
@MrGreghome3 жыл бұрын
How about helicopters?
@mabussubam5123 жыл бұрын
Anti-tank guns: *"Allow us to inroduce ourselves"*
@julianshepherd20383 жыл бұрын
Drone "say hello to my leetle friend"
@RobertReg13 жыл бұрын
Hi Binkov, been watching your material for a bit and gotta say this was my favorite. Appreciate you differentiating between factual and estimates.
@ascensionindustries96313 жыл бұрын
Rule future battlefields? Not if future A-10s have anything to say about it. BRRRRRTT!