M1A2 Abrams vs T-14 Armata

M1A2 Abrams vs T-14 Armata
► Subscribe to Grid 88: goo.gl/UYzU9H
United States’ M1A2 Abrams and T-14 Armata are two of the world's most advanced and deadliest main battle tanks. And even though some of the specs of these tanks including armor composition are kept in high secrecy, we’ll try to compare these battle monsters and determine which tank is superior in a real battlefield scenario.
1. Quick Facts
The current Abrams is a significantly upgraded model of M1 Abrams, which was adopted by the US Army back in 1980. In the decades since the M1 entered service, the tank has been upgraded many times. The M1A2 SEP V3 is the current version which will serve the US military for years to come.
On the other hand, the T-14 Armata is a next-generation main battle tank based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform. Development of the new tank began in 2011 and was kept in high secrecy. The Armata was first publicly revealed in 2015.
2. Specifications
Around 10,288 Abrams have been built so far costing a latest variant around $9.63M. Operated by crew of 4, the Abrams comes in at whopping weight of 74 tons. Abrams is 12ft wide, stands 8ft tall and 32ft in length. The tank is powered by multi-fuel turbine engine capable of generating 1,500hp. With the help of this massive engine, the Abrams can reach at top speed of 45mph on paved roads. The tank comes with 120mm smoothbore gun with manual loading mechanism. Secondary armament includes a 12.7mm heavy machine gun and two 7.62mm machine guns. With fuel capacity of 504 gallons, the tank can operate within the range of 265mi.
While T14 Armata is still under military testing in its final phase. Around 20 units have been built so far with plans of 100 units to be built for testing by military. As of now, per unit cost of the tank is around $4M. Operated by crew of 3, the tank’s weight is 55 tons. Comparatively, T-14 is slightly bigger at 35ft long, 11ft wide and 11ft tall. The tank is powered by diesel engine delivering up to 1,500hp. With the help of the engine, the tank can reach at top speed of 56mph. The tank is armed with 125mm smoothbore canon with autoloading mechanism. The tank is equipped with a 12.7mm machine gun in addition to a 7.62mm machinegun. The operational range of the tank is around 310mi.
3. Armor & Crew Survivability
The Abrams is one of the most protected tanks in the world. The tank is protected by steel-encased depleted uranium armor. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a heat projectile. The hull and turret are fitted with armor package for enhanced protection against threats from …
On the other hand, the Armata is equipped with modular armor system made of steel, ceramics and composite materials. The T 14 is a world's first production tank with completely unmanned turret…
4. Mobility
Abrams are powered by Honeywell’s 1,500hp multi-fuel turbine engine. With the help of this engine and a six-speed automatic transmission, the tank can achieve maximum speed of 45mph on paved roads, and 30mph on rough terrain…
The Armata is powered by a new turbocharged diesel engine, generating 1,500hp. The maximum power of this engine is 2,000hp. However, the engine is optimized at 1,500hp in order to maximize its service life…
5. Firepower
The Abrams is armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun capable of firing variety of rounds. The main cannon is very accurate and can destroy a moving target effectively in excess of 2.5mi. The gun is loaded manually by the gunner…
In contrast, the Armata is armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun. Its muzzle energy is even greater than Leopard 2's legendry 120mm gun. The gun can fire a wide range of ammunition, including armor-piercing projectiles, guided missiles, high-explosive anti-tank shells, air-burst shells and other types of rounds…
Watch complete videos for the conclusion
FOLLOW us on Social Media:
► Facebook: thegrid88
► Twitter: grid_88
► Become a Patreon
/ grid88
Playlists
► Military, Army, Navy & Air force
• Military
►US Army
• Playlist
► SUBSCRIBE so you never miss another video: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Credits
1) “Crossing the Chasm" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
2) US Department of Defense
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
3) Минобороны России
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
The appearance of US DOD, US Army, and visual information does not imply or constitute their respective endorsements. All footages and images are owned by their respective owners.
#M1A2 #Abrams #Armata #T14

[@kumaranm2368]

China: don't worry, copy both 🤣🤣

[@xusenyusuf9361]

Copy and paste😂😂

[@fst_B]

Henry Obito Fimneisang have you ever heard of Chinese history? China become a official country in 1949 which means they have a lot of catching up to do. Copying is the fastest way to get tech

[@fst_B]

@RikkyCZ yep

[@penonton4260]

@@fst_B copy and steal ~

[@kimtau87]

America copied alot of stuff from nazi germany. Including hiring scientists.

[@ruzibek_]

USA: M1 Abrams Russia: Armata t-14 China : M1 Armata 🤣 new Chinese tank

[@user-ni7qk9gc9c]

@jack the viking 🤣🤣🤣🤣 LMAO

[@ericcadelina5157]

Very cheaper $50😂😂

[@1963Austria]

What about Abram..it is from China

[@debasismandal1228]

Type 99A 🤣🤣✋

[@avatara5301]

Lol

[@jcasma]

The main difference between the two is that the Abrams is a real tank that has seen combat many times, while the Armata is still a prototype

[@CHEVI789]

Bullshit, the Armata has been tested in Syria, as is every other weapon Russia has made, they all passed after they were adjusted due to the real life combats, the Abrams have NOT come under attack from a formidable force, only sandal wearers and less better tanks and that is a fact, the only way for any of us to be completely sure is if an Armata and Abrams went head to head, maybe in the Ukrainian war we "might?" see this..

[@Hope-dp8qz]

@@CHEVI789 no Armata in Ukraine

[@ioannispasaloukos4885]

Yeah that’s why the best tanks in the Second World War have been Russian ,and we never heard any machinery failure in the Russian military equipment

[@peterbruno657]

@@CHEVI789 high tech Russian stuff is used mostly for parades. Their strategy is to send in the old stuff and young soldiers first and send in the good soldiers with the new stuff only if needed which they never are bc they are always fighting weaker opponents. Wars come down to which side has the most resources, not which resources are better. I can't think of the last time there were 2 equal sides fighting. It hasn't happened in my lifetime. The only time an army invades is when they are almost gaurenteed victory.

[@Kingkongphil]

@@ioannispasaloukos4885 lol best tanks in WW2 wasn't Russian. It was German.

[@Joeatsaco69]

I was a Gunner on an Abrams. Auto loaders are slower and round selection is not as fast as we use humans. The speed of the Abrams displayed is the unclassified version (just saying). Abrams can attest or 8 rounds per min (Table VIII).

[@gustavmeyrink_2.0]

These days tanks are mostly death traps when pitted against a well-armed opponent. I'd take half a dozen PzH 2000 howitzers over 60 Abrams any time. With it's autoloader it can fire 13 rounds per minute indefinitely, fire 5 rounds in succession so that they arrive 20 miles away simultaneously in an area of 3ft x 3ft and it's self-guided anti tank round can destroy 2 tanks at a time also over 20 miles away. Also works as a tank destroyer firing direct line of vision and there is no tank armour in existence which can withstand a direct hit from it's 42kg (100lb) 155mm shell. Just be glad that it will never come to that since all users of the PzH 2000 are in NATO.

[@anthonyinzerillo2804]

@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 fully agree

[@Lintasbenuanews]

AVERAGE US PEOPLE : US MADE VS FRANCE MADE : US WIN US MADE VS CHINA MADE : US WIN US MADE VS RUSSIA MADE : US WIN US MADE VS WORLDWIDE : US WIN US MADE VS GOD MADE : THEY STILL SAID THEY WIN, LOL SO HYPOCRITES BEHAVIOR RACIST CRAP

[@randallbelstra7228]

@@gustavmeyrink_2.0 Yes, but howitzers are not tanks. Your howitzer rounds will just scratch an abrams paint.

[@Bustermachine]

@@randallbelstra7228 A direct hit will very much destroy an Abrams. But you are right that a Howizter is not a tank and cannot perform the functions of a tank. This is illustrated best by the fact that the artillery is a not an isolated system, but relies on other assets to spot for it and protect it. Just as the Howitzer and Infantry screens spot for and protect the tanks. And the tank provides heavy, unsupressable, direct firepower to protect the infantry and artillery.

[@user-mo8ph7fw6m]

Brothers, hello to you from Russia. YOU are strong I do not argue. Let's not fight, there will be no Winners ...

[@thorinbane]

Your people have much respect from this Canadian. Regardless of USA propaganda the USSR and Russian Federation have done well in all matters of science and warfare. Particularly space exploration. There is a wonderful documentary about the Cosmodrome that surprised US scientist about 1970's Russian built rockets being 30% more efficient than they believed possible. Different methods of research can have different outcomes. I wish you well. желаю Вам всего хорошего

[@arthurmiranda3804]

thorinbane US propaganda? We are normal people just like you

[@alir.9894]

@Russian - Great words! THANK YOU!

[@thorinbane]

@@arthurmiranda3804 Dude I watch from outside the USA, you guys use Russia as a boogeyman that scares your population. Even when it isn't valid. Dems and Rep throw out the "you are supported by russia/china" all the time. Meanwhile the news doesn't bother to explain how even when the russians have followed through on treaties the USA has more often than not reneged on their half of the deal. When your news and government pretend like everyone else is at fault, including for domestic issues, its sad propaganda. I mean at least the russians knew their news was inaccurate. In the states just whip out an apple pie, the flag and a bible and find the next country to bomb without a second thought or verification. Colin Powell(and many others) should be hanged by the definitions we gave to the nazi at their war crimes trial. You can't pretend its OK to do so because "we" did it and wrong because "they" did it. Torture of prisoners even under Obama? Hey its ok, we will just call them unlawful combatants and strip them of their 'rights'. You have no rights, and it shows in the hilariously orwellian Patriot Act.

[@user-ox3bp4rz3n]

@@thorinbane Thank you for your kind words and we wish you all the best!)

[@h5mind373]

I'll wait for the civilian version of the Armata...

[@rodjarrow6575]

...with one crew member and a steering wheel with full control of the tank turret, cannon and machine guns, like on a game joystick?

[@nahhh...]

Something *only* an american would say

[@keonigseggjesko12yearsago75]

Yo, new armata dropped.

[@nahhh...]

@Landyn Crockett because you got some close relationship with US, we Asians can't relate

[@Neil00841]

Yeah.. I'm waiting. My toyota sucks. First thing I would do is roll over my boss's car. 🤣

[@larrybrantley3770]

On the modern battlefield there are several factors in this argument: all of the factors you present are included, but there are others: 1) Who fires first 2) Where does that hit land 3} Air superiority 4) Close air support 5) Supporting infantry and Infantry fighting vehicles. We miss the big picture when we reduce determination of military strength to a comparison of military equipment piece meal. Military effectiveness must be evaluated with personnel, training, equipment reliability, maintenance, logistics, leadership, esprit de corps. All of the equipment design and quality in the world will not win a war. It takes all of that and more. To see the winner, you need boots on the ground and pacification.

[@gianlucafelice1959]

Ll

[@mrgold3591]

The armor battalion in the field ops when I was active duty in the early 90s was configured with M1A2 mixed with Bradley fighting vehicles with T.O.W. missiles and infantry soldiers, scout platoon in forward position looking for contacts and being forward observers for mortar and artillery, mobile mortar units overwatching the tank companies, engineers ready to breach or cross obstacles, close air support from A-10 warthogs when available (other units trained with Apache), and the entire battlefield overwatched with a battalion of 155mm self propelled howitzer or MLRS for offense or counter fire. You would have to get through a lot of layers before you can get to a tank-on-tank battle. By the time that happens, there wouldn't be that many T-14 left for the Abrams to take out.

[@gregkerr725]

It's called combined arms doctrine I believe........something the Russians seem to have a hard time organizing.

[@user-cg3iv8wq5d]

Абрамс это корова для Арматы!

[@abysso5786]

One thing I like about this channel is, it isn't biased because some channels will make the US sound more superior than it really is.

[@glandhound]

This. National pride shouldn't be hurt by a comparison of two designs. Yet most of the comments read like the script of Red Dawn.

[@24packman74]

12.7 no it's a 50 caliber on the abrams. Also Russia can't afford to build anymore than they have.

[@swedenneutral7892]

You are so right

[@netyimeni169]

i was searching for comparison in english language because russian channels trying to do same thing most of the time. glad i found this channel.

[@raff257]

@@24packman74 12.7 and 50 BMG are the same, damn you americans learn the metric system

[@ardennezjr]

Both are formidable tanks. It boils down to the competency and skill of who's manning the tank.

[@it5221]

nope, which tank has longer range-wins

[@myusername3689]

@@it5221 ……..well yes

[@RocketboiC4]

Also which said took control over the skies first

[@svongsa]

Planning, weather, etc

[@john._.9740]

@@it5221 well yes and no if you have longer range and your enemy has very good skill... well you're dead

[@NWA744]

M1 Abrams: Over 8000 made world wide and 3 wars worth of combat experience. T-14 Armata: *Sad Ruble Noises*

[@AndreyAltai]

Да. Россия же не нападала и не убивала мирных людей по всей планете. Танки были не нужны.

[@Aknayelth]

@@AndreyAltai exactly

[@Aknayelth]

Каждая страна, к которой прикасаются Соединенные Штаты, становится позорной.

[@slyleggs4344]

The armata will wreck Abrams,leop2 and challengers .the armata has also been designed to take a much bigger gun at a later date.you won't see them in action until he has stockpiled them.the first shipment and training battle ready and signed off for combat.the 2nd production run is underway.the Abrams has had its run,now there are bigger boys toys.usa is probably working on something as is other countries.for arms weaponry designers it's a buissness.come up with something better than everyone else and your landed.big bucks.cat n mouse.been going on since the beginning.

[@bukktoof]

The US military actually maintains their equipment, trains the crew properly, and gives them practice ...

[@AAL-mu8ms]

And still lose wars against third world countries with no counter weaponry 😅😅😅

[@Hope-dp8qz]

@@AAL-mu8ms The Russians also lost in Afghanistan 🤷‍♂️

[@bukktoof]

@@AAL-mu8ms You are confusing winning military engagements with the bullshit that politicians do.

[@Jay-ye5gk]

@@AAL-mu8ms they still completed they missions tho🤷🏾‍♂️ crippling al qaedas reach destroying training camps getting osama bin ladens Nd his minions responsible for 911 they goal wasn’t to take over Afghanistan altho they could have if they wanted to

[@Madmaxxxx1984]

@@AAL-mu8ms Now we all can't forget how 30,000 NATO working with delta special forces ,airborne divisions and Marines got there asses kicked out of Mogadishu by 6000 Skinny's and there local village with old un kept 50 year old Soviet AKs 😆🤣

[@pylyo]

why not try using a metric measurements system? I mean, you're already using it when describing ammo size (120mm). It's really confusing hearing about feet and having zero clue how it translates into size, if you're not from states.

[@gametheorybasics]

It will boil down to two things: 1) Reliability; 2) integration with other assets. German Tigers were far superior to Allied tanks, yet broke down too often. Also, if one side has better air support, the other side's tanks will be sitting ducks.

[@BRYKS22]

And that nee motor they use for the armata looks jankie

[@anthonyinzerillo2804]

@Zyruss Miguel Aquino superior to US and UK tanks, but not Russian heavy tanks

[@99Yeti]

The m1a2 has that 2

[@pimpompoom93726]

Tigers were bigger than Sherman tanks, whether they were superior depends on a lot of considerations. Sherman tanks were easier to manufacture, easier to transport on ships, easier to transport on land, could run on significantly less fuel/mile, were dependable and did the job on all fronts, from the Pacific Islands to the icy cold of Belgium in the winter of 1944/45. Yeah, the Tiger had a bigger gun and thicker armor, but so many Sherman tanks were deployed by Allied forces that Tiger vs Sherman confrontations were very rare. All things considered the Sherman was the right tank for the applications it was used for, without question.

[@danpaval]

@@pimpompoom93726 Sherman had a main barrel of 2" (50[mm]); not enough to penetrate the Tiger front plates. Tiger appeared at the end of WWII and wasn't brought to state of the art but was technically superior to the other tanks. Was needed 2 to 3 Sherman to fight against a Tiger.

[@somaday2595]

Other factors - * Crew accommodations / comfort. Space, HVAC, noise * Crew communications * Communications with the outside world * Maintenance requirements and practices. There was mention of the T-14's engine changeout time. That was a design consideration of the M-1 using a turbine vs diesel. Are auto lube systems used, OEM spectroscopy to detect incipient failures utilized, et cetera * Performance records. A comparison of disabling events could be revealing. * Thermal signature

[@andreashackler2220]

By the way, can the t14 drive underwater? The Leopard 2 can go up to 4 meters under water and has a 3 meter underwater shaft. Fording ability without body 1.20 meters.I haven't driven a better tank to date. The Leopard 2 has the best overall package and he still has one of the best fire control systems.

[@anthonyinzerillo2804]

Agree Andreas!

[@jorgeestopinan810]

And how much actual combat experience?

[@anthonyinzerillo2804]

@@jorgeestopinan810 how much have you?

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

given that smaller tank that is t-80 can ford safely about 1.8 m it can be reasoned that t-14 is capable of at least that.

[@tonyrichard2705]

My dad is bigger than yours

[@Soulful_Life07]

Armata looks damn good

[@Time_X_1234]

Sexy I'd say with that smooth auto loading, aiming and thicc reactive sandwich armor it's sweet!

[@zetareticuli841]

Abrams looks better...

[@blixbelliose3206]

The Russian machine is technically advanced, but rather obviously the Abrams is a far better tank. Wonder how long it's gonna take the Russians to remove that auto-loader and add a fourth crewmember

[@1amadopino]

@Александр Бесфамильный I guess when they meet each other in the battle field, which I hope never happens, we'll find out.

[@miccko05]

@@1amadopino and the armata will win because it is virtually unhitable

[@Viper6-MotoVlogger]

Awesome and informative video bro 👍

[@walter2065]

Bro.....😒 talk normal English

[@justsomecoolprayingmantisd6422]

I’m going with that Abrams , saw a Armata tank break down during one of their parades

[@cooldabadam]

Later on it was found out that the driver accidentally hit the emergency brake button, the tank didnt break down

[@justsomecoolprayingmantisd6422]

@ cooldabadam - 🤫 don’t tell everyone. We want to think it broke down. 😅. Anyways thanks though. I didn’t know that. Bet vlad was pissed about it lol

[@paulmorris6177]

The T-14 is like the SU-57...a couple of "prototypes" but unproven on the battlefield against a competent and equal enemy. Until that's done, it's all speculative!

[@saidalasgarov4971]

SU-57 seen somewhat of a combat in Syria. Supposedly even fired a missile in combat and had 10 flights there in total.

[@louisquatorze9280]

Exactly true, you beat me to the comment.

[@eu29lex16]

Lol, it's not speculative, it's damn dirt stupid obvious what a tank is capable of by looking at it's design, lmao.

[@paulmorris6177]

@@eu29lex16 …well if “looks” is what convinces you of something that’s capable, I’ve got a warp-engine that I’d like you to invest in! Honest, I’ve got a GREAT LOOKING design, but I need a million dollars to see if it works! 🙄

[@hueghh3775]

@@eu29lex16 A design that hasn’t seen any use beyond a parade where either it broke down or a crewman hit the brake so hard it got stuck for fifteen minutes because nothing was available that could tow it.

[@garywhitehead1188]

Both are very capable tanks. When there is no strong mismatch between the capabilities of tanks, it's always the best trained and experienced crews that will make the difference in a battle.

[@jacobdewey2053]

Not to mention their supporting casts (infantry, CAS, intelligence, etc)

[@wyattrodriguez2036]

i hear that

[@panan7777]

After seeing their "success" in Ukraine, I strongly suspect this is just another russian worthless shit show.

[@panan7777]

@Bigger Issues Well, way too many russians are serious alcoholics. With the insane amount of AA rockets, they are also loosing several planes and choppers per day. NOT to mention tanks. From all that the russians have shown, ALL of who would win? comparisons are now pure joke. I believe that putin should start setting up the defense of Moscow. ;)))

[@royegabrieli5858]

@@panan7777 the Russians are quite successful in Ukraine. Their goal isn't to destroy Ukraine but to take it over, so they aren't leveling cities like the Americans did in Libya/Iraq. They want those cities intact for when they (Or whatever vassal govt they would put in charge) would take over, these cities would remain productive.

[@mrnoob39]

You forgot that T-14 armata can get dropped by a transport plane right in the middle of the battlefield

[@mrnoob39]

@Malte xD

[@jordzking6330]

Drop in the middle just to get instantly shot in the turret disabling the turret making it just another big lump of metal on the battlefield that can only take hits and not give out any back

[@mrnoob39]

@@jordzking6330 Did you ever hear about angled armor or Reactive armor?

[@jordzking6330]

@@mrnoob39 Yes obviously the t14 has that but that doesn't matter the t14 turret lacks turret protection because no crew is stationed there and the abrams can easily cut into it

[@mrnoob39]

@@jordzking6330 & why it had smoke screen launcher?

[@RichyRichToo]

Excellent presentation!

[@providentpathfinders219]

Its amazing what dark green painted plywood can be shaped into.

[@vasiliykryuchkov7130]

The comparison ends when u need to cross the first bridge on the tank. lol

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@duiveldoder That was not the point of his comment. Most small bridges across Russia and most Eastern European countries, cannot withstand the weight of Abrams or Leopard, Challenger, basically the weight of most Western tanks. And not without reason, they are so constructed! So, if someone wants to start conquering Russia, let them be ready to force every stream...

[@fr1g1db1tch]

I think the comparison ends when one is on the battlefield and the other.. where is it? Damn.. still in the Garage :D

[@usedtoberyanpoopnownormal8822]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 I see one problem *who would invade Russia*

[@jimco5852]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 Mobile Bridges exist for a reason. Military already thought of that.

[@Big_Ol_Roach]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 don’t need to cross a bridge to take Russia when you have the largest and most powerful air force along with the second largest but most powerful navy

[@user-mo8ph7fw6m]

Clearly, competently, and to the point ... Well done.

[@Rustebadge]

I think the video was unable to provide proper and relevant spec info or operational info. The fastest, largest, best paint job or loudest radio don't equal survivability.

[@mastermariner7813]

The US military says top speed is 45. We know it did nearly 70 mph in early versions. Hard to believe it would be slower now...

[@josephmac2386]

You can't believe everything you hear

[@toddcrookham515]

I was a crewmember on the M1 Abrams in 1983. This had the 105mm main gun, we were told that our top speed was governed at 45 to 50 mph. This was done to preserve the tracks, without the governor it was said to do 60 to 70 mph. One factor that would cut it's top speed is all the extra weight it's put on over the years! Armor up, and main gun upgrade to 120mm aren't free! Upgrading the main gun wasn't just a matter of slapping a new barrel in. Also there is much more electronics systems on board today. These new M1's weight a lot more than the originals did.

[@tracyhemming5635]

It’s governed to 45 but mine in Iraq went faster than 45. They are only governed to 45 so they don’t throw track they’ve done testing and they where doing over 80.

[@davidtennien2806]

They are limited to 45mph. If you unhinge them they will go up to 70mph but you run the risk of throwing a track.

[@toddcrookham515]

@@davidtennien2806 yes and wearing out the tread blocks.

[@german-engineering1963]

US military has been testing munition autoloader for decades, and it concluded that manual loading of shells is still faster and reliable than machine contraption. Most critical factor is reliability and serviceability. Time again has shown that combat equipment that relies too much on digital technology does not perform well in long term combat scenario. Similar situation has been observed in automobile industries, where ultra-modern cars required special training in equipment, maintenance crew, and custom-built facilities to troubleshoot and service the vehicles. In highly mobile, blitzkrieg style of warfare, keeping up mobile servicing facilities can be a serious, logistic challenge.

[@junyanwan1005]

there's also the reality of heavy tank maintenance out in the field required for extended ops, including track repair and loading of ammunition. The workload on a 3-man crew will mean that tanks are out of action for longer between engagements than for tanks with a 4-man crew

[@martinbuldr6196]

Armata is proof of the inability of Russian despair and the inability of serial production. The statement that it is not necessary because they have a T-90 are just lies masking the deplorable state of Russia. Even for the T-90 he has to buy an optoelectronic in the west (T-90 uses Thales systems). They do not even produce a sufficient number of shovels. In contrast, the M1A2 Abrams is a fully established tank with serial production. The comparison is just a wet dream of Vladimir Hiltlerovic Putindiot. A few dozen M1A2 Abrams and Russia may begin scrapping wrecks in bulk. T-14 Armata is like Yetti, everyone talks about him, but no one has seen him yet and send a few prototypes to the show to go around a few circles ... it means nothing. Russia is lying as if it is printing and no one knows if they have grabbed plywood, glue and a tractor. T-14, Su-57 ...

[@pacivalmuller9333]

We will see. T-14 will prove itself on the Battlefield.

[@martinbuldr6196]

@@pacivalmuller9333 Do you mean those few prototypes that are far from fully functional? They manage a few circuits on Red Square and wave & greetings to Vladimir the Mad. It is losing min 20 years on developed countries In the future, perhaps they will solve problems with electronics and optoelectronics (Import), perhaps even with motors, and they will be able to produce at least 5 serial machines. Announce, show off at Red Square and say they don't really need them. Until then, they prove only the absolute inability of serial production. With Putin's madness, they will have it even harder than they have had so far. Their industry is based on imports (machinery, equipment) and they are not able to produce anything advanced on their own. How long have they been announcing being alone in optoelectronics? 7 - 10 years and the results are still the same - Import, Import and Import.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

@@pacivalmuller9333 T-14 will first have to prove itself on the parade ground before it can prove itself on the battlefield.

[@rayotoxi1509]

7:24 T-72 was one of the first to use hunter killer mode

[@hshhshe9873]

He said one of the forst

[@PaulP580]

🤣

[@nationalistcanuck7800]

ONLY the versions built for the Soviet Red Army. Their export monkey-models had no such thing.

[@Wartredis]

@@hshhshe9873 T90 better them Abrams and Armata MUCH better deal with it)

[@shimadwan8251]

Dont forget T80UK with Thermal Vision

[@johnnyappleseed738]

The combat tested are always better until proven otherwise.

[@Heartrose7]

Just remember to not underestimate your opponents, that's a good way to end up barbecue.

[@yoinks9907]

If combat matters so much the t-72 should be the best tank in the rifle

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodcl4824]

@@yoinks9907 tell that to the Iraqis

[@Glee73]

all the technology, engineering and shiny specifications ain't gonna help when you only have about 20 units of the T14 in existence...and "maybe" another 100 units on the way.

[@DOI_ARTS]

With the economy busted, I dont think so and with Ukrainians killing tank per day I dont know if they will field this model.

[@richardm7275]

It would be a more impressive comparison if the correct specs were used. For example, the M1A2c is not entirely steel and DU as the video states. It includes composite armor of varying density to deflect penetrators. Also, the Trophy system, the most effective active protection system there is, was omitted. If you're going to do a video get your facts straight. Most importantly, the 20 to 40 T-14's Russia has isn't going to do anything effective against the thousands of M1 series tanks the US has.

[@marksauck8481]

The comparisons don't hold much validity if specs given here are wrong. I'd trust any US tank over Russia because the training is always better. Much of what we have has been battle tested which effects training.

[@richardm7275]

@@marksauck8481 Missed the point, you did.

[@1482speedy]

@marko stathis we got that too ours work better thou

[@SA-nb8lj]

@@marksauck8481 The training is better? Perhaps before the rainbow army transformed the US military in a circus!

[@roostercogburn3771]

@marko stathis , just curios if there is any tank, or any type of vehicle that could survive a close nuke?

[@Zillgian83]

Here's a tip: add metric system measurements to appeal to a broader audience.

[@KatinoBerete]

Yes, ft doesn't tell much for most people.

[@wilhelmferdinandiii7430]

Nah fam, we just built different

[@ge3346]

There are two kinds of countries. 1. Those who use metric. 2. Those who have put a man on the moon.

[@Zillgian83]

@@ge3346 *2. Those with the highest number of adults who think angels are real. There - that's basically the same level of argumentation :D

[@-Ninnux-]

@@ge3346 Guess what. NASA uses metric

[@mrmilwaukee89]

Considering that a semi auto is more prone to feeding and jamming issues than a bolt action ill take a Abram but that separate crew cell and motor are very nice on the armata

[@Badhagis]

I would say that if all other things are equal (or not heavily skewed), then as with fighters, the difference is likely to come down to training, and real world experience with the particular weapons system.

[@scottcupp8129]

The Armata is the most flexible tank in the world. AND it can be towed with a tractor!!

[@Ptolemy38]

t14 armata best in world

[@dnate697]

Is what I said last year!

[@Ptolemy38]

Lighter. Bigger gun. Faster. And les. Personnel.

[@dnate697]

@@Ptolemy38 T-14 is Vapourware or a Paper Tiger. It ain't did Jack Shat YET!

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

@@dnate697 it reloads, shots and hits target, drives and turns. thats not case of paper tiger, more like case of ambition that could be, but for financial reasons development slowed down. since current war in ukraine shows some kind of disorder in russian army, maybe that project got delayed due to corruption (same way military lobby in usa delays development of new american mbt due to making more money by producing spare parts for 40yo tanks?)

[@elenaberwick3980]

Abrams exists, while Armata effectively doesn’t

[@wilhelma.3301]

are u stupid? it excist and is better than your stupid abrams tank

[@claqyagami6914]

Yeah Russia does not have the money to produce their hi-tech equipment in large numbers. So they just develop a few cutting edge weapons to compete with America in small numbers to keep the expertise so that they are never too far behind or even pull ahead like we see with hypersonic missiles.

[@mariomatura4308]

@@claqyagami6914 he he

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

@@wilhelma.3301 it no exisct. are you stupider? Russia too poor to build more than 10 new t14 tanks or even buy trucks and feed its soldiers. Should have spent money on good tires Vlad rather than cheap Chinese discount knock-offs!

[@kirk8595]

Also a cheap switchblade drone will take it out launched from well beyond gun range. Tank warfare between 2 modern armies is over. Even if wasn't, I'd take more than 1000 Abrams over 20 prototype Amatas. Russia is now broke, they can't afford to make more.

[@umarbidzhiev8322]

Here is a interesting fact Armata is at 55 tons can cross almost all bridges, which will help him to increase attacking speed, no bridge will need to reinforced. For 70 tons tank crossing a lot of bridges might be a problem...

[@swacks7960]

bro omar what are you doing

[@carlruffier3092]

Don't worry we have bridge builders that can put up a bridge in a couple of hours.

[@Justineexy]

@@carlruffier3092 couple of hours? Nice. You can't just simply reinforce a Bridge to the point where it can handle a 70ton machine.

[@Justineexy]

Yes, but Russia doesn't need roads or bridges Russia has the ultimate weapon, nature!

[@safecharge4441]

@@carlruffier3092 yes mexicans are good bridge builders for americans 😂

[@JesusRamirez-xq1xe]

I look at the overall picture. The abrams is 40+ years old and still in the top 5 tanks in the world. It outnumbers the t14 40 to 1 (if not more, the US Army has 1000’s in storage). It looks like Russia slowed down or paused production. I’m taking the abrams anyday. What good is a new tank when you can’t even afford to produce it, same thing with the SU 57

[@carlblom7973]

Ta byt the armata is still a prototype. And it will hade a more rapid produktion later. And still its a batter tank. Bit still your right the abrams is older. Its 40+. But the abrams is still alot diffrent now then the Abrams from the 80s. And now its alot more modern. And there are still new designs from the abrams that will come soon. But of you ask i would choose Armata sorry.

[@JesusRamirez-xq1xe]

@@carlblom7973 the way the Russian economy is going I don’t think they will mass produce it any time soon

[@carlblom7973]

No your right. But its not about if the countrys can produce them. Its about hon deadly the tank is

[@DezNutzBich]

Guess we'll these two on the battlefield pretty soon!!

[@annanngermogutierrez9877]

Im not russian but i like armata

[@terra5763]

Said the russian

[@gruzza9000]

Im not russian but i DO like russia

[@runnyburrito969]

@@gruzza9000 you find russian girls hot?so do I! Greetings from lithuania

[@x-kill6543]

@@terra5763 I am Austrian and I like the T14 Armata😅😅

[@karanchandra2491]

I am not indian but i like arjun tank

[@yotobol7942]

I think the best advantage of armata is the gunner's screen... so comfortable and easiest to shoot

[@MrProfGenius]

And unmanned turret ! 👍

[@shlug]

@Stephen Beck-von-Peccoz why would a computer be less accurate than a man?

[@shlug]

@Stephen Beck-von-Peccoz if you go that route, you need to get rid of automatic transmission, powered turret, navigation and sighting systems. You're fucked when your enemy can make 3 shots while you manually reload one.

[@jordzking6330]

@@shlug The armata can't even fire more than 2 shells before the abrams so your statement is pretty dumb also he wasn't comparing how many shots can go off compared to the other he's saying that the auto loader can get jammed easily/ break down then the turret can't fire at all and considering how thin the armor supposedly is on the armata it's gonna get jammed by a lot of stuff because even auto cannons can probably penetrate it

[@shlug]

@@jordzking6330 yeah yeah go back to playing WOT, expert lol

[@rondhole]

M1 has been in battlefields for decades and prooven to be very effective in all fields. Armata has no history yet, common problems and effectiveness is ???

[@mortarman20111]

Wait. When did the M1 prove itself in combat?Because the last I knew, the only tanks that it really went up against was the aging fleet of T-62 and T-55 tanks that Saddam Hussein had. Please correct me but fighting tanks that have been obsolete is not combat proven. That’s seal clubbing.

[@rondhole]

@@mortarman20111 It is still the most veterans of all. Armata is using western chips and optics from wester suppliers. There is always a gap down from the west sold to east

[@mortarman20111]

@@rondhole agreed. But I think that the M1 has yet to really be tested in battle.

[@aimxdy8680]

@@mortarman20111 T72s we’re used by iraq which is russias most common used tank, and USA destroyed them

[@mortarman20111]

@@aimxdy8680 tell that to the T-62’s and T-55’s that sat in the tank graveyards at in Mosul. Amongst other places.

[@johnhall7679]

This reminds me of Nelsons Navy, Chatham dock yard the 1st mass production line in the world well before Ford Motor Company. The technology was copper bottomed battle ships which reduced drag caused by barnacles making them faster than the French. Nelsons tactics was thinking outside the box.

[@Sigmakarl-123]

It's impressive that other nations are still playing catch up with these US weapons which were developed few decades ago.

[@rogerjones624]

Using British designed Chobham armour

[@MrEddieLomax]

Your tank doesn't yet have a boiling vessel, one day the M1 may catchup to the challenger 2 :) Seriously though, I suspect the T14 will be beset by technical difficulties and any tanks damaged will suffer electrical failure, I also guess they've given up on the 125mm since they plan to add the 150mm I think this is an admission that if Russia had to fight the US we'd see that upgrade.

[@zackhaycraft8159]

@@rogerjones624 yes but the US military perfected it to make it a lot better

[@zackhaycraft8159]

@@MrEddieLomax Abrams don’t have boiling vessels because our soldiers and tank crews actually fight

[@MrEddieLomax]

@@zackhaycraft8159 I refer you to the history of the British empire to compare success rates of tea vs non-tea supplied fighting.

[@vernehetzel5411]

Armata for sure is better tank at this moment.

[@thir671]

i havent seen it in combat yet

[@kanishjhaumal3391]

@@thir671 yeah

[@jahenders]

On paper perhaps since it's never seen a real battlefield.

[@wvt5825]

It all comes down to the crew, logistics, and commanders

[@cannon3267]

at 55 tons, and with a big old heavy weight diesel motor, the T-14 is giving up armor for speed. that's a mistake that several navys made during WWII, and it cost them dearly.

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

i didnt hear germany complaining about their diesel motors that also deliver same power

[@deliriummtremens]

Mistake? With that mistake they liberated Europe friend.

[@deliriummtremens]

@@seushimarejikaze1337 of couse they will not complain, germans are germans.

[@shaileshkarmukil163]

T 14 ARMADA, would certainly be the best.

[@usedtoberyanpoopnownormal8822]

Hold up the turret can get blown off by the Abrams. I doubt that Abrams would miss the shot. Also if a track gets blown off the 4 men have a easier time than the 3 men.

[@Big_Ol_Roach]

It’s not until it gets that actual combat field testing. The Abrams had the same if not higher expectations as the armata when it was first revealed but battle testing shortened some of the stuff a bit. So actually combat testing will prove if the armata is even good

[@skhochay]

there is a major factor in the logistics of each tank, so the Russin tank is modular that say the parts are interchangeable easy to fix do not need much ground support as the support unit can maintain the self-propelled guns, BMP's and others and that is a huge win. as far as the capabilities Abrams is more refined over time and Armata is very new, both are very good tanks.

[@benghazi4216]

But one exists in the thousands, and the other exists as 100 test vehicles. Its one real system that have been used many times in combat, and one that is far from ready. It's not even in production.

[@cjroberts7022]

@@benghazi4216 quite right

[@yourtypical1722]

@@benghazi4216 if China gets their hands on 1 T14, they can mass produce it and copy it

[@benghazi4216]

@@yourtypical1722 In principle yes. But Chinese copies are superficial copies. They can't actually reproduce all the high end tech stolen from others. Russian engines are too hard. American stealth coating as well. And if you haven't noticed, China doesn't even have side armor on their tanks. They are useless in modern warfare. But good for driving over students, like in Tiananmen square.

[@friedrichdergroe9277]

i think that decreasing the crews too much is a pretty bad option tbh, what if the other crew was injured or killed? In a tank, you gotra have backup crews so that it can still fight.

[@user-xn2zd7bl1u]

Every crew member has his own task and cannot be replaced by another crew member.

[@99Yeti]

@@user-xn2zd7bl1u sometimes

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

you cannot replace people in a tank with people that are already in that tank. russians operate in 3 man teams ever since t-64....

[@damshek]

"Deadly"? Armata is still in development. The only way it could ever kill anyone is by accidentally running over a technician.

[@rudiralla9630]

Armata still don't work...

[@xza5687]

@@UniverJ T-14 Armata is now in Ukraine.

[@ChrisZukowski88]

@@xza5687 talk about desperation if thats true XD

[@xza5687]

@@ChrisZukowski88 first Russia sent bad equipment, untrained soldiers bc they thought that it would be easy and that Ukrainians wouldn't fight. Now that the opposite happened they are sending their real army.

[@slyleggs4344]

@@xza5687 no there not in Ukraine.

[@MrProfGenius]

7:06 Tank drift ! 👍

[@Logan-dk8of]

with regard to firepower you forgot that abrams fires silver bullets, doesnt matter how much crew survivability or fire rate you have if you cant penetrate the enemy and they can penetrate you

[@toddcrookham515]

The Abrams Digital battlefield systems are very much an advantage that cannot be overlooked!

[@essex3777]

That and if the U.S. military _really_ wanted to push the limits, they'll ditch the concept of an MBT/Medium tank and make an 85-90 monster with a 155mm gun.

[@toddcrookham515]

@@essex3777 they have that already! It's called a Howitzer! As it is the M1 pushes the weight limits on where it can travel! An actual tank with a 155mm main gun would be useless because you couldn't transport it!

[@explicitreverberation9826]

@@toddcrookham515 my ISU 152 says differently

[@Bill-xx2yh]

"With the help of the engine" it has a higher top speed? WELL SURPRISE.

[@jasonthan4068]

T-14 looks like a t-44 on steroids

[@johak6464]

It's a no brainer, Armata is by far superior, it's a completely different generation so it's normal

[@wartornforester1868]

Absolutely. But I have to say that the testing part of the Armata puts it in the on paper part for me but I still believe it is the best tank in the world right not because Russia/USSR has been better at producing tanks than us overall (one step ahead). But their have problems to pop up and it might happen with these advancements.

[@Kevin-zk1ir]

Henry Forester well simply because America hasn’t been producing any new tanks since the 90s

[@wartornforester1868]

@@Kevin-zk1ir I want them to as well but it wouldn't make sense really. Their is no need to make a new one. It has its flaws, and some parts are just bad like fuel consumption, but it's still an elite tank overall despite its flaws and the engine still retains a lot of pluses despite fuel. You can argue that if you want but the fact that no one else has made completely new tanks except Russia and South Korea says a lot about NATO tanks as well. Russia didn't need to, T90 MS is a beast versus NATO tanks imo so they didn't need to but they did and it certainly earns the best tank title but we don't need to until Russia has a full production line ready. As in over 600 for production, even then that's limited at best.

[@Kevin-zk1ir]

Henry Forester I personally don’t think NATO makes new tanks because their only opponent nowadays is isis and taliban and they don’t have much of an army and sorta China but its technology is still behind NATOs

[@theidiotskiller6589]

M1A3.

[@RichardWilkin]

Surely the typical effectiveness of weapons, such as tanks, relates to their performance in supporting and being supported by the entire military operation, rather than just a single tank’s capabilities on its own. This would include how the army is trained to use and support the tanks, along with the context given by air support, supply chains, information management and communications, military strategy, etc.

[@klat2baraada579]

You are correct Four things sets us far apart from Russia, or really anyone else to be frank: 1) The level of DEEP INTEGRATION as well as COORDINATION * of all branches of the modern American military,. from the Pentagon down to a tank commander. And our forces are well-trained . (By "Integration", I mean technical, technology, tactics, logistics, communications, etc., 'Racial Integration' goes without saying) 2) NATO: It is a very POWERFUL military force, and we are also able to coordinate with them as well. Russia's CSTO is a shadow of NATO 3) TECHNOLOGY: On the whole, our weapons WORK! 'Nuff said. 4: EXPERIENCE: Russia has fought a series of brutal but regional military conflicts. As bad as they were, they were all limited in nature. America? Until our withdrawal from Afghanistan, when was the last time, since 9/11, America WASN'T at war? Nobody does war like we do. We have Sr. Officers who earned their stripes in Desert Storm and right after 9/11. From Pentagon brass down to Marine Corporals, America has a military force with lot's of war-fighting experience. Not to mention ours is an all-volunteer force, not conscripts. * For a great example of this, KZbin search "Desert Storm - The Air War, Day 1 - Animated" To see the literally THOUSANDS of aircraft, from all branches of our military, along with other coalition aircraft, flying the most INSANELY COMPLEX, coordinated aerial ballet, really demonstrates this. Based on Russia's Ukraine fiasco, Russia could NEVER pull that off on that scale today, more than 30 years later. It's worth the watch.

[@alexandergalarza9505]

for me personally I go with the M2 Abram tanks and I believe they were one of these foremost deadliest tanks I've seen especially when seen in combat and in some parts in the news when I was little

[@cjdfnivdhfvvjngxdvk5929]

It had to be American news ofc

[@mikezahnow1605]

@@cjdfnivdhfvvjngxdvk5929 Russian tanks are easy to destroy.

[@DGS11VIDEO]

With 30 years of difference of experiences two wars M1 have advantages. The most impressive of Armata is the cost, engine and range.

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

and a gun.

[@cooldabadam]

With 30 years of experience also come with a 3 decade old chassis

[@deliriummtremens]

What experience? Not that good experience from Afghanistan

[@sebastianletsch8421]

Nearly 6000 Abrams in service vs 12 Armata...sounds like a fair battle 😂

[@martinmanley5303]

Thats all america is.. power display. Too bad it cant afford a war 😂 Plus they are all kids. Average age of what.. 18 ? 😂😂😂

[@johnday28]

@@martinmanley5303 25-28

[@themajesticusa6672]

@@martinmanley5303 I guess u r war thirsty .... 🙄

[@martinmanley5303]

@@themajesticusa6672 im not, the US is

[@marks1034]

A lot of it comes down to training and tactics. Also reliability.

[@rickluft267]

The A 10 has never met an armored vehicle that it didn’t like BRRRRTT!

[@matthplays-2312]

It's going to be a shame when the A 10 is decommissioned... I hope the next generation will find some way to keep the legend of the brrrrtt

[@rozerking09]

T14 seems far better because of it lighter weight and mobility. Lighter weights makes it more suitable to tread over low capacity bridges. Moreever armata is more upgradable and put to different uses because of its universal combat plateform.

[@thorinbane]

Also is easier to transport by rail and air. I think its tall profile is a bit of a drawback, but that doesn't matter much in the age of missiles.

[@expandedcopy7262]

and way greater ai

[@raff257]

T14 suffer availability issues

[@gabevietor3685]

Overall, the T-14 is better, but there are more Abrams variants that are coming out that could be contenders. Besides, Russia is only going to be able to build a few T-14s, as their economy is riddled with corruption and malicious politicians merely seeking to gain monetary power. Their country just doesn't have the resources to go toe to toe with the US.

[@gabevietor3685]

@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz Elaborate perhaps? "The one in default it's the usa" is a difficult sentence to understand, particularly because it doesn't seem to have any meaning behind the words. For your other comment, I very much doubt that Russia has that much available cash. Besides, they are too corrupt to actually act on it, thanks to Bill Clinton meddling in their elections and setting up corruption himself.

[@comareborn8734]

If it was a 1v1 I'd take the Armata, if it was an actual war I'd take the Abrams. It is like 20 vs 20,000.

[@sontung4552]

We don't know the actual strength of M14 Armata.

[@Bojan8309]

T90 s will also do their job ..

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

@@sontung4552 We also don't know whether the M14 would break-down, get stuck and not move, requiring a tow vehicle.

[@sontung4552]

@@ElGrandoCaymano yes, agree.

[@sontung4552]

@@ElGrandoCaymano also Russia is not Soviet anymore, they just can't even handle hundred m14, only around 70 of them.

[@RecklessLilJ]

M1a2 Abrams have been battle proven already. The armada hasn't. That's the most important factor.

[@jarekw1224]

battle against who? Arabs?

[@kylanmiddleton2094]

Russian dependability is a serious issue. Also only being able to use diesel is a serious disadvantage in combat. The Abrams with its company of support would flat out annihilate the Russian Armor.

[@seushimarejikaze1337]

lot of russian "diesel" engines used on tanks are multi-fuel too(diesel or gasoline is usable for sure among other options). you seriously dont need more options than diesel and gasoline.

[@By-s]

As much as I'm biased towards the T-14, you omitted the Fire Control System which is the strongest suite of the M1 in which it may hold the edge over the T-14.

[@yourtypical1722]

I won't do any damage if it doesn't penetrate the 2100mm of armour in the front

[@scotthodge778]

The T-14 is a medium sized MBT by weight. Even though it has modular armor, I doubt very seriously that it could withstand a hit from the 120mm . One shot to the turret, and you now have a three man APC, lot’a good that would be. I’d like to see the videos released by the Russians showing live fire tests done like the ones available for the M-1 Abrams. Live fire combat says more than driving around, I think we need more information before we crown this tank the GOAT. Nuff said

[@nick_steele9790]

I will say that I’m not sure if ANYTHING can really take a hit from an abrams (within combat range). Honestly it seems that armor is becoming less and less useful against near peer enemies but then again I don’t know much about armor or penetration values of modern stuff.

[@brianlee4813]

@@PROLIFIC_TRAVELS what if I devil my armor just right

[@jamesstreet228]

Well, there was a disabled M1 in Iraq that they decided to scuttle instead of trying to drag it out and they didn't want the technology to fall into the hands of China or Russia so they decided to destroy it with other M1's. What they found was a big surprise. Even other M1's had trouble with penetration. It took several hits in the same area to finally punch through. And these were the same rounds that were cremating T72's. DU is what we used in the CWIS onboard ship. I've UNREPPED plenty of it while we were underway. It will penetrate armor like you can't imagine so, it stands to reason that it would take alot to penetrate DU.

[@jamesn9000]

Where ever you're from we'd welcome the chance. If you're in Russia, see what happens if you tried to invade any of North America. God be with you if you try.

[@royegabrieli5858]

@@PROLIFIC_TRAVELS The Iraqis were quite well trained, they were veterans of multiple prior wars. The issue was that they were fighting the whole of NATO + much of the Middle East during both Iraq Wars. The coalition invaded with ~2.4M soldiers officially. You actually have a ratio of between 1 to 8 or 10 troops between combat troops to the overall force (Since you have to have people taking care of logistics), which means the coalition sent around 21.6M to 26.4M soldiers for their invasions of Iraq. Basically they had more troops than Iraqi citizens, to claim the Iraqi's were a joke cause they lost to such an overwhelming enemy is retarded.

[@kentleytaggart5816]

Good vidio,worth the watch time.

[@halfeddi3152]

Nobody can deny... The T14 Armata is sexy af

[@gman64827]

Bro 🤨📸

[@joep5146]

Since the chances of a head-to-head tank only battle in a future war are about zero, the real determining factor will be the integration and coordination of land and air assets. Whoever controls the sky over the battlefield, whether that be with manned aircraft and/or drones, wins the battle. That said, it looks like the Russians have a real winner with the Armata. Let's all hope we never see the day when the real shooting starts. It would be much better for humanity if we can find common ground on at least a few issues and work together.

[@SilverShark8554]

Very true, America has way better aircraft but Russia’s anti air can shoot down any plane once close enough, so who knows?

[@rannxerox3970]

Partly true. The chances of a US vs Russia confrontation is tiny but once both tanks are for sell, esp. in the Middle East, chances are high they will battle. Either tank will more than likely fight a Israeli Merkava at some point in time.

[@russianboy9241]

Controlling the skies though still is not the determining factor their are things called anitaircraft guns you know and Russia has alot

[@joep5146]

@@russianboy9241 Good luck in hitting an F22 or F35 with AA fire.

[@russianboy9241]

@@joep5146 there something called a fucking rocket specialized to hit fast air targets

[@derekhunter3125]

Given that there will really be virtually no Armatas the Abrams take the prize: "The initial planned acquisition to have as many as 2,300 T-14 tanks enter service by 2025 was scaled back to just 100 experimental vehicles, but Russia has fallen short of even reaching that goal. In fact, to date only around twenty pre-production units have been delivered to the Russian army for testing." WE don't know if Russia will get to the 100 mark. It is kind of Contemporary Russia's answer to the WW2 German E-100.

[@barfuss2007]

2023: still 20 Armatas, none of them in ukraine war.

[@idTapacoB]

конвейер настроен под т90, все танки выходят в модификации т90мс прорыв с орудием от арматы и мелкими доработками, из за того что в Индии стоит российский завод собирающий т90, то сейчас просто едут запчасти на Урал, где 24/7 просто собирают танки, за 22 год 450 танков, в 23 году план 600 штук

[@peterbruno657]

"we don't know what kind of weapons ww3 will be fought with but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones" I forget who's quite it is but it seems fitting

[@ColumbiaRail1]

The video said the M1A2 had a top speed of 45 mph. My assumption is what the governor is set at for peace time operation. A tank commander who transferred to our unit in Germany in 1979 from Fort Knox said a Kentucky State Trooper told him that he clocked XM1s at considerably faster than 45 mph. Another question is about the acceleration of an M1 with the turbine versus the Armata’s diesel. The XM1s from the test unit at Fort Hood in 1981 had an incredible acceleration/speed and it was difficult to track or lead them with the sights on an M60A1. How fast can the Armata’s engine wind up to full throttle compared to a turbine?

[@dustyoldduster6407]

Which one is better - Abrams or Armata? Hopefully, we’ll never find out.

[@nationalistcanuck7800]

Hopefully, we do. DESTROY USA TODAY!!!

[@jahwah8275]

@@nationalistcanuck7800 shut up Canadian peasant and fall back in line

[@IstvanThree]

Ah, yes, the comment section! It´s what you expect: Seeing so many of the smartest, military brains, specialists from all over the planet. And to witness their intellectual jousting with words and cold logic, it´s awe inducing.

[@youvgotmilk7736]

it really is

[@balbopilota]

I Remember a funny movie with Eddy Murphy about the Abrahams. I am still laughing thinking about that lol

[@renanfelipedossantos5913]

Abrams wins by actually existing. Armata is a prototype and never entered mass production.

[@tomegert8857]

Thx, I think armata is better, but it will be long time when russian army starts using it in large numbers

[@kiana_kaslana12]

I doubt it

[@user-rx3pg2wi7m]

T-90M is still far better than M1A2 Abrams

[@gingerbaker1785]

@@user-rx3pg2wi7m Ya no it has not seen the combat that the m1 Has. And has not proven it's self in combat.

[@yeary0517]

@@gingerbaker1785 Lol, it was deployed in Syria as a support unit in 2015. So it saw combat during the operation

[@erezyisrael1866]

I See many Abrahams burn down in jemen Shot down with 4000 Dollar RPG by Hero huthi fighters... 15 Million Dollar away

[@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter]

"Slightly superior" LOL

[@snuppssynthchannel]

Pure speculation at this point. If the Armata is better which it might be, it would not matter at this point because Russia haven't been able to produce 20 of them yet, their supposed goal was to be able to deliver 300 of them if I remember correctly, they are now faaar behind reaching that number, they are delayed beyond words. Meanwhile, the M1A2c will be mass-produced and most agree on that its likely one of the most capable and up to date tanks in the world, now that it gets a hard kill protection system, added hull and turret armor, improved sensors and a lot more upgrades. The Sep v2 was already a world class Main battle tank, and now the Abrams is being taken to the next level. Its also a combat tested platform, so it has been updated and modified accordingly to each demand/need, the M1A2c might just be the best tank in the world right now, although it has worthy competition in the Leopard 2A7 and K2 Black Panther.

[@snuppssynthchannel]

@SCPF BRASIL I am Norwegian, we use the Leopard 2.

[@benjaminknapp5343]

@SCPF BRASIL And thats a rip

[@tyecollaborator5017]

Ah,nothing more valuable than a scientist.

[@dannyboy2750]

Tanks will be obsolete anyhow in the next war. The real question is who has the space weapon technology to take outt ground assets

[@exec2968]

Does the new Armada come with the cutting edge egg crate foam that is being found in the armor skirt bags of some in the invasion? Lol.

[@derekpierkowski7641]

The fact that it Runs only on diesel is extremely significant.

[@j.m.1524]

The true worth of tanks are proven on the battlefield not test ranges.. At this point, the M1 is a proven platform. T14 has yet to be battle tested..

[@jimmyrincon3910]

T14 has been battle tested in Syria.

[@antlando2555]

@@jimmyrincon3910 when? I haven't read of anything, but I'd love to see the results. Do you have a link?

[@GeOl011919954]

I would agree

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

@@antlando2555 Everything isnt shown in public but here we go: MOSCOW, April 19. /TASS/. The T-14 tank on the heavy tracked vehicle platform has been tested in Syria, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said on Sunday. "Yes, that’s right. They [Armata tanks] were used in Syria," he said in an interview with the Deistvuyushchiye Litsa (Political Actors) with Nailya Asker-zade program on the Rossiya-1 television channel answering a corresponding question. "They were used in field conditions, in Syria, so, we took into account all the nuances."

[@teto3153]

I knew there would be that one twat in the comments being a blind bias moron.

[@petersaccato6719]

It's an arms race, so no advantage will endure as long as the opposing side can afford to remain in the race. The M1 is a proven platform, the one to beat, while the T14 could be a game changer. Keywords: could be. Russia has a history both of surprising technological breakthroughs and of failures due to forced cost cutting measures which ultimately led to their defeat in the first Cold War. They just couldn't keep up with American massive spending. The Armata looks good on paper, but the battlefield is where it matters most. While the USA and Russia will never be stupid enough to fight each other with their best weapons, these weapons will have ample chance to prove themselves in the proxy wars to come, where it is often not good enough to own the better weapons. In the real world, superior weapons can often be neutralized by superior tactics. The real winners: the weapons manufacturers, of course.

[@MikkoRantalainen]

Also, the Russians are not known for high quality workmanship. I wouldn't be suprised if T14 is good on paper but the actual mass production units turn out to be total crap.

[@x-pixel9736]

Успокойтесь ребята, берегите нервы, чтобы не портить сон Армата не существует, это мультики злого Путина для взрослых мальчиков😆😁😂

[@x-pixel9736]

@@MikkoRantalainen То есть по твоему все русские танки полное 💩????? Ну и как тогда Россия выиграла вторую мировую войну? Микко!

[@MikkoRantalainen]

@@x-pixel9736 Do you really think that Russia did win WW2?

[@x-pixel9736]

@@MikkoRantalainen Если ты не знаешь где прошло самое грандиозное танковое сражение в истории, и кто в нём победил, то вообще не касайся танковой темы Это не твоё!

[@RednerKlallamStrong]

There is only one way to see witch one is better ? Action is louder than words always has been !

[@JamesWilson-vt1xg]

It depends on the training and determination of the crew.

[@TacoLover1]

I love tanks!

[@sharkfin7895]

What about tacos?

[@user-vz2fl9ds9i]

And I love Russia

[@suryapratamak1690]

t14 seems lightly armored. 20 ton weight difference is concerning. any army going up against the US have to contend with warthogs and apaches as well, compromising aromor on any side is not good. Unless a tank is fast enough to outrun a turret swing, i don't see why a 10mpH TOP speed difference is going to be an advantage in actual combat.

[@joshfritz5345]

To be fair, some of the weight loss is due to having one less crew member and an automated turret. That being said, I think the Armata may well prove to be overhyped. Russia's military equipment has a long history of looking very intimidating in parades, but falling flat in actual combat.

[@laughingcloud3516]

@@joshfritz5345 russia keeps abandoning new untested equipment they officially adopted cause the actual geniuses (who they rely too heavily on) that developed the good equipment they've had over the years either died, fled Russia, or refuse to design new equipment. The US on the other hand will field very small numbers of equipment in live combat testing before adopting it (for some reason the F-35 was exempt from this). a lesson learned from Vietnam when they sent large numbers of M-16s into combat despite being an untested prototype at the time. this also reduces the need for geniuses to design everything though it does increase the amount of time stuff spends in development.

[@derrellconnor8387]

I use to be a driver of M1A2 tanks. The information on the tank is a bit wrong. They max out at 65 mph. Also, there is a 50 cal as the main gun and M240 as secondary. They also don't mention that they can be fired inside of the tank too.

[@shaddahs3812]

Do the Tanks have protection against electronic warfare?

[@borisdorofeev5602]

I really like the designs of both these tanks. I personally prefer the specs, auto loading and crew layout of the Armata, but I like the visual look of the Abrams.

[@yegorgribenuke6853]

Yeah. Tank is synonymous with Abrams at this point.

[@Big_Ol_Roach]

Tbh I don’t like the auto loader. That’s just asking for a blowout

[@dillonmcconnell2592]

They did not go with auto loader on the Abrams because it required over 400 moving parts. Way way to much to go wrong. Under heavy combat it will definitely fill at some point.

[@stevecherk1022]

@@yegorgribenuke6853 PR is just PR.

[@stevecherk1022]

@@dillonmcconnell2592 well, yes, they couldn't just do it, it remains to look for excuses. In Russia, the automatic loader was made half a century ago. There don't seem to be any special problems

[@statsredner9399]

Just like people fighting people in the ufc levels all talk till they finally get it on in the field . only then the truth will be known . so for now I'll just keep it fair and say both are tough both are built strong and keep at that .

[@marekbeker]

It'sdifficult to compare fully operational tank Abrams with dummy.

[@bigshow3038]

Guess we'll probably find out soon

[@ShadowGearFive]

It always depends on the skill and intelligence of the tank crew, the tank is just there to realise the idea and tactic of the tank crew.

[@abdulmbuma7453]

Better and best Training 💪💪

[@ShadowGearFive]

@@splizzex yes ofcourse but if it was a fight between just the M1 and the T-14 it will depend on the skills of the crew.

[@vronxee6873]

Then why are they making more advanced one

[@ShadowGearFive]

@@vronxee6873 to support the crew with the best technology and make it easier for the crew. but if the crew sucks with the most advanced tank they still wont stand a chance against a very experienced high skilled crew with a less advanced tank.

[@ShadowGearFive]

@@splizzex yep also that plays a role

[@edgarsimon2582]

i like the Russian T 14 Armata

[@user-jl3iu7bi1b]

Ты случайно трусы не стирает? Или ты мочу подменяеш?

[@RzennikHarranski]

@Jim Kalpa depends on situation but many times no beacuse of contermeasures

[@abba3020]

Armata OK. Abrams NO!

[@gigasmr1872]

Sjm

[@PhillipHarbison]

I did not see any mention of stabilization. The M1 has turret stabilization which allows it to shoot accurately while moving. That would appear to be a huge advantage. The Russians traditionally had an advantage in night vision but I believe we've caught up with them. America's advantage in BMC3* means the M1 is much more effective as part of a team. *Battle Management Command, Control, and Communication

[@hansg6336]

Mechanical reliability and repair support is huge. If they break down and you can't fix them, they can't fight.