T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank - Good Or Bad Tank?

[@aerojetrocketdyners-2538]

its a very happy tank, it has no depression

[@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ]

What Russian tanks ever had :P No where near as bad as some of the IS series. But props for the pun OwO

[@kenanalcantara7397]

Russian Biased

[@nuraly78]

Spoofy Tofuwu -10. same as NATO MBTs

[@aerojetrocketdyners-2538]

at least it has some or not it will be a sitting duck

[@abramsatwo2515]

I'm curious as to how a 'lighter armoured' turret because a completely crew less environment is an advantage ? a system that relies solely on automation is more susceptible to malfunction 'especially' if its in a lightly armoured environment . granted the crew's survivability is increased but without a main gun all you have is 3 guys in a box...

[@bigdbigooo7829]

As an American looks like a badass tank to me. You never underestimate your competition, Are people not taught that anymore.

[@RR-us2kp]

Some trolls still believe that I'm afraid

[@chadjustice8560]

It simple math. They are hoping to build a 100 by the end of 2020. This tank is nothing more than propaganda. It would go against hords of m1s, challenger 2s and Leo's. Plus with the us controlling the sky. It's underestimating it's knowing the math.

[@RR-us2kp]

See what I mean?

[@crusadertachanka5883]

@@ladner10 yes war is never easy

[@fadia7446]

I think the biggest issue is... Huge profile T72 series relied on small profile which was a pro for the armor

[@sledrider908]

This video was amazing. I've finally found someone who truely understands tanks, tank warfare, and isn't biassed.

[@_Matsimus_]

Calvin Black thanks Calvin!!

[@Pablo-xy3lo]

@@zkydominicgalford7220 dont say its name mat might hear

[@michaelfrench3396]

@@_Matsimus_ greetings from 2021! The Russians still haven't made thirty if these things. And that's the main problem with this tank😉👍

[@ImWallace799]

me or matsimus? probably matsimus

[@thesaddestdude3575]

@Good Bye Im just bairnaised

[@Roddy229]

Being biased towards the Abrams (as I served on them), I've got say the Armata is a beast of a tank. Russia has done some insane work with their armor programs. I'm curious to see how the Armata does in a combat situation. As for the breakdown on the parade, those tanks are early production models, and are very susceptible to bugs. Look at what the Abrams and other vehicles went through with their production runs, bugs, bugs and oh yes... more bugs. It takes time to work them out.

[@darykeng]

Probably end result would be closer to T-80, but fancy and better. I mean, just look at AK-12 of 2012 model and AK-12 (and AK-15) of 2015 model

[@darykeng]

@willl 88 Guess it for more modern warfare with drone recon and constant exchange of information between tanks, AIV and infantry

[@Roddy229]

@willl 88 yup, and when the autoloader breaks, they're boned

[@azynkron]

@@Roddy229 We had autoloaders on the STRV 103. It had no problems what so ever.

[@azynkron]

That's the thing. None of the modern MBTs have faced each other yet. The M1s, Challenger 2s, Leo 2s e t c, have only faced T-55s, T-72s and T-80s. And of those, mainly the first 2. The generation gap between them is huge and can't serve as a yard stick no matter how you look at it.

[@Vollification]

I don't understand at all why people dislike the T-14. It's a brand new tank, of course it will have faults, that comes with any new weapon-platform. It is technically impossible to have a new tank that is perfect from the start. All tanks that go into service will have to face trial by fire before you can judge it.

[@_Matsimus_]

Vollification well said 👍

[@Markov092]

Also, Russian Ground forces won't probably use T-14 in combat situation anyway. In future, they will most likely use more reliable variant, T-14A or something.

[@KoishiVibin]

Original Abrams had the shittiest armor ever. Any Russian tanks within 1500m would go through, in all likelihood.

[@h0st_le960]

@@KoishiVibin A lot of American armored vehicles are shit at first it's just that America has the money to improve it and make it better

[@Vollification]

@@h0st_le960 All new weapon-systems are shit at first. Engineers design them, engineers build them and soldiers break them. And then the engineers have to upgrade them. Engineers: "This new missile-system will kill any tank within a 100 km radius." Soldier: "I spilled my beer on the dashboard and now it doesn't work. This system sucks!" Engineers: "Back to the drawing-board."

[@tylerpontius8880]

While watching this I came up with a really funny idea. Wouldn't it be awesome if we had some kind of tank Olympics where tanks are pitted against each other as drones. No crew inside 100 % remote control from bunkers nearby. Wonder how many people would watch that lol.

[@KoishiVibin]

A lot. And governments would do it to prove a point lol

[@thebigsam]

It isn't really the same thing, but there is "Tank biathlon"

[@mattrowlands5751]

That sounds... expensive

[@ottopike737]

hoyah hayoh probably cheaper than the Olympics.

[@serbianknight973]

U sir,are a genius and i love u...that idea is really good than we shall see who's is bigger and better... wisdom in ur words is enormous 🙏

[@Cannibalismo-b2x]

Too bad it could never beat the Bob-Semple tank.

[@AaaBbb-kw5em]

Agreed

[@Pen3989]

Dont worry the tsar tank can beat it

[@bokata25]

do u know the german ww 1 super heavy tank

[@hunterbg7531]

@@bokata25 are you talking about the A7V aka the moving fortress

[@VladislavDrac]

True. Even the feared IJA feared attacking New Zealand because of that hellspawn tank

[@Irish381]

Cool name, impressive design, and crew survivability built-in. Top marks in my book. And I'm a U.S. MARINE. 🇺🇸

[@ImWallace799]

i hope you are chilled down and relaxing knowing that you serve the red white and blue

[@bieloruskii]

@AT Tatarstan... Sometimes I don't regret what soviets did to you...

[@worldoftancraft]

More like "a decrease of «armoured air» is built-it"

[@worldoftancraft]

@@bieloruskii put a not-even-fully-feudal-society on rails of way to so-called socialism? Build a lot of "unprofitable" facilities to, as the first reason, grant a job to the local population? What a crime.

[@lance8126]

dont worry, the t14 armata is made with stalinium, uses stalinium shells, and.....coated by russian bias shield

[@andreyche193]

With your loud mouth and your arrogance one can only wonder why you need so much expensive weapons, particularly always attacking weak and poor, bombing "brown people": you could simply shout and brag them to death, or just sit on them!

[@pyrrhusofepirus8491]

@@andreyche193 you are the 2nd person I've seen today that doesn't know what a joke is, and I agree with him, even though Stalinium hasn't been as plentiful as it was 20 years ago it is still an Excellent, formidable armor, Stalinium shells are feared by everyone because it's a hybrid of Stalinium and a KV 2 cannon, the Stalinium armor coating has been once attempted to be stolen by Americans because it is the absolute quality armor coating, Russia keeps it's Stalinium mines and stock pile are keepin so safe that in order for mice to enter the building they have to pay 50 dollars and be strip searched

[@azbgames6827]

yes komrade

[@justinspiguzza5276]

The T-14 Armata is junk. Nothing works with it. The main weapon Auto-loader is junk and does not have a secondary hydraulic (manual) back-up at all. So if it fails, its just an 90 ton pressure cooker waiting to blow up from the inside out, the second a proven U.S. Abrams tank zeroes in on its side. Hell, even at Russia's own B.S. Military parade last month a T-14 Armata tank flipped over on itself, lol. Thats driving at a controlled 25mph speed, on pavement. I cant imagine going off-road in war, lol. How the hell does that even happen? This guy keeps talking about how they designed the tank to be automated and with less personnel then traditional tanks. 3 vs 5, the turret not being manned (again, 1 camera goes out and well these millions of dollars waiting to be blown up. Talk to any veteran tank team (regardless of the country or age) and they will ALL tell you, none of them would want anything automated especially without a manual back-up especially In real war, everything fails and it's been tested, manually hand feeding is by far quicker. That's a fact. The Maintenance division of any militaru is by far the busiest division of any war big or small, in the history of all wars (from sharpening swords, to re-loading ammo, re-supplying food, to mechanic of vehicles. Now you want teenagers that are 17-20 to fix auto loaders, tank turrets, etc all in make shift areas in war zones. This guy just got done saying that all the talk about the T-14 being unreliable it "bogus". All of his videos are pro'Russian. Every video ends with the number one system being......"russian". The T-14 has been Russia's "new" tank for 14 years yet only 4 have been fully built (the same 4 that are always in their bogus parades). Could just be fiberglass shells bolted to trucks knowing them Russians Putin has been talking about all this advanced nuclear crap like missiles, underwater nuclear continent to continent missiles, space nukes, etc. Saying his weapons reach further like 4000 miles, blah, blah, blah. But yet U.S. spy planes along with our allied spy planes watch and prove with actual viso footage as his crap blows up 2 miles after take off, every single time its tested. Its hilarious! Russia is the same country a year ago that actually tried using "call of duty" graphics as combat footage last year saying they got into heavy combat. The same country that said that the s-300 and s-400 anti air-to-ground missile systems they sold to Syria, destroyed 74 out of 100 missiles that the U.S, France, and several allies countries fired at Syria all at once last April. Yet, the devastation after the fact was unbelievable. Qe all watched as only 1 missile was hit and it was live on TV. And that one probably just collided with another one of the allied missiles lol. Hitler will always be the best at propaganda (because he truly thought Germans were built like gods) tied for a close 2nd is Russia and N Korea. N.Korea because their 13 yr old spoiled ruler spanks off to the fact that he won't let his citizens watch TV with any shows other then N. KOREAN and that his picture has to be in every room of every house by law (he just has daddy issues). But Russia and Putin are habitual liars. I mean nonstop lies. For such a broke ass country they sure do spend a lot in parades and fake ass news showing new and improved weapons testing (from 300 miles away of course and with no notice to any international media sources). They dont help any countries with shit. They sell a handful of dictator ran shitbag countries weapons and gas but that's it. They spend 4.6 billion a yr in their military. The U.S.A. spends 700 billion a yr and that's because we give NATO 78% of their annual funding (meaning all of the countries that get NATO help when needed, aplit the remaining 22% between them. it comes down to just under 1 million per country NATO countries spend. And Russia is still broke. Lets not talk about France. They roll over in every single war they ever get into within 2 week. People have flight of fight senses that they are born with. French ard only born with flight. They even gave up in WW2 in 13 days to a country the size of Texas (Germany) then most of those french cowards said they were German then killed millions of innocent Jews who had no control over how they were born. U.S. citizens that couldn't pass their physicals wanted to fight in WW2 so bad that 68% of citizens that failed their physicals and/or were denied to fight committed suicide because they felt it was there duty. So Russia wants to gas babies and kids and act like they didnt provide the gas, or poison British citizens, or conduct fly-bys next to Alaska, or "threaten the U.S" over areas of Syria? I have a strong feeling the U.S. is about done with all the gossip. Do you really think the U.S. would announce a hostage of pilots, or problems with ,B1 bombers, Raptors f-22 problems, f-35s running behind schedule, etc, etc. Think about it. Russia can build fancy stuff (or pretend to). Won't matter when the U.S. calls your bluff after blowing the 1 and only carrier out of the ocean then asks how your new s-500 anti air missile system did. Oh and for Russia's good pals China, Japan has them in check. Japan's military is the 2nd strongest military on this planet over Russia and China. RUSSIA is junk, China can't even build their own weapons (nor cars) systems, even their just released carrier is 40 yr old crappy ship they bought from Russia for $2,000,000 and re-purposed. Oh and the Chinese and N. Koreans have the same Russian made soda can armored tanks that the US completely devastated and anialated in the Iraq war. You remember, over 1,300 Russian tanks blown up like big pressure cookers but we did lose 3 U.S tanks. Technically a 4th was damaged when an Iraq citizen asked a US soldier to pull down Sadams concrete statue with a tank. (The statue of Sadams Head scraped the paint and the U.S. had to buy some tan spray paint). Speaking of shitholes to live, wasnt it Russia who lost the war against Afghanistan very badly in the 80s with their own 40 yr old Russian weapons used against themselves? Lol, I don't mean a stalemate. I mean the Russians lost thousands of soldiers to guys in robes and sandles who have fought the same way for thousands of years. Maybe got binoculars and 2 way radios for technology. Just sayin. I guess it like the Germans dying in the Russian snowy cold weather and payback with the Russians dying in the hot sandy weather. And to think, Afghanistan does not have 1 airplane. Not 1. But again, Russia was their to take, and the U.S. stays their to help innocent civilians who get their heads cut off simply because the were caught reading a book or a female was learning to spell. World needs to wake up. The US helps everyone with $ and emergency recoveries. Think about these shitbag countries.

[@CE-qf1cr]

Kv2 best girl

[@frenchmainwt]

A normal American : It's bad tank because it's Russian A normal Russian : It's bad because it's American But this tank looks cool And have cool name :D

[@deprussian5499]

Bohemian Mapping HD exactly! bouth American and Russian tanks are good

[@originalgnomesta8272]

american tanks are out of date for now

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

im neither and I really dont take americas side and i dont really want to choose russias side but, cmon given the choice would you take a reliable, tested and battle hardened abrams or a new potenitally amazing or just as more likely base don history of russian vehicles, take a russian tank? now if it came to something uniquely stupid american designed like a hummer vs anything else, id take anything else.

[@abdulminara3698]

Count von siebenburg you Mean losses ini Vietnam?

[@Steppy-qx9tq]

I strongly agree, I finally see someone that sees what KZbin’s comment sections are like. I respect your comment and I see a lot of people like that.

[@MatoVuc]

biggest dissapointment: it's not carrying the legendary log!

[@justrandomman2415]

MatoVuc 7/10 not enough logs

[@Gawagu]

Maybe the log is hidden away in an internal log bay, like internal bomb bays in stealth fighters. :D

[@france4339]

*cries*

[@penapvp2230]

TANK IS ITS OWN LOG!

[@official_lukaswglt1750]

For me as a german, the T-14 isnt a bad tank... I mean even our Leopard 2s dont work at all... The concept of the T-14 is really interesting and I like how the russians try to build a complete new tank with a complete new concept of saving life/crew. Greetings from Germany!

[@ericolsen5592]

Historically, Germans have never liked Russian tanks.

[@ztunelover]

Leopard 2 works really well. But this is also a very impressive tank.

[@richard70854]

LukeSky537 what do you mean the leopard 2s don’t work at all are u mentally alright?

[@lkvideos7181]

"I mean even our Leopard 2s dont work at all" - that's the dumbest shit I've read in a while. How does it supposedly "not work" ?

[@maggus1108]

Genau deiner Meinung!

[@contrabandest]

AK-12 (standard issue rifle) GAZ Tigr (4x4) URAL NEXT (Transport truck) KAMAZ TYPHOON (Armored Transport) Bumerang (APC) T14 Armata (MBT) Mi-35 HIND (Arrowhead helicopter) Mi-38 (Transport helicopter) Sukhoi Su-35 (Fighter aircraft) I'm really liking this new modern Russian military lineup

[@Pilbsu]

+Leopold Probably an intermediate round and automatic/single fire.

[@nirktheman-thingstab-cutter]

The AK-12 trials against the A-545 have not yet ended and honestly I don't see why a replacement is needed. Admittedly I haven't fired an A-545 or AK-12 but they seem to be from what I've read just more ergonomic AK-108s and AK-74s respectively.

[@halseyactual1732]

Should be Mi-28 or Ka-52. The Mi-35s are nowhere near as advanced and are actually export models of the base Mi-24.

[@DoDo-dq7yf]

But the gas tigr is not Russian, is Italian :)

[@thomaschadwick1557]

+Marco Montano GAZ Tiger is russian product, GAZ Rys is licenced Iveco LMV.

[@F15ElectricEagle]

All MBTs today are more or less the same and have their strengths and weaknesses. What I find interesting is there is almost no discussion about the tank crew and the support needed to keep a tank in peak operating condition. In most armies a well-trained, experienced tank crew backed by a well-equipped and effectively run supply chain and repair facility is more valuable than a good tank.

[@davidokeif8304]

Having the ammunition separate from the crew compartment seems like a no-brainer nowadays. The Ukrainians T-84 made it a point to add it to the t-80 design. They also got rid of the turbine engine, which might say something about the M1 as well. But yeah, I agree, there are many considerations beyond straight up tank performance.

[@joeg5414]

Proven well by Russias struggle in Ukraine now.

[@ЩанкинАлексей-и9д]

Согласен с вами , ремонтопригодность танка в полевых условиях много значит .

[@duke0salt717]

I think my Favorite Tank is the T-90s, very low profile, light powerful, layered defenses, great armor also auto loader, great fighting vehicle

[@timurlane4004]

Yeah nice tank indeed. But it's not so good tank right? Compared to m1a2 it has slower reload , and is slower in general. But it's a good tank though

[@duke0salt717]

@@timurlane4004 no it's reload is about 6 seconds which is faster than an Abrams, the biggest disadvantage to these Russian Tanks is the poor gun depression at - 5 degrees which severely limits its combat effectiveness they can't hit a car right in front of them

[@timurlane4004]

No actually , Russian autoloader is actually little bit slower. Abrams shoot 12 rounds a minute while T 90 is 8 round per minute, and even though it's engine was upgraded, t90 is still little bit slower . And the gun and pen over all is close T 90 's 125 mm smoothbore is more powerful giving it velocity advantage , on the other hand the Abrams's round is far larger compared to T90 . And due to that the APFSDS of the Abrams has more penetration. Around 800mm . While the T90's pen is 700-780ish . The sensors on the Abrams is one whole generation ahead of the T90 , with better specs range and quality . But T 90 has ATGM which is really good on long range battle. Over all Abrams's depleted uranium armor is far better than T90 . T90 still uses Kontak5 . Over all Abrams is slightly better than the T90 . But the crew is important too

[@duke0salt717]

@@timurlane4004 i might be confusing some specs with T 72 I don't know the exact model but I know they have a very fast firing gun around a 6 second reload and piss poor gun depression, makes targeting bunkers a nightmare. But it's incredible Canon mixed with a quick fire rate makes T 72 a dangerous weapon the apfsds is a fantastic round for both vehicles but I personally think armor is overrated. The most likely place to get shot is the turret. So the best place to armor is the turret, that's why Leo 2 has such impressive turret armor and average hull armor.

[@duke0salt717]

@@timurlane4004 there is one thing though that the Russians are very fond of that most countries don't use. Anti Tank Guided Missiles which have and insane armor pen of almost 1500 mm

[@Omnihil777]

NYET! T-14 is blyed, is bullsheed, because has no log! Only tank with log is real tank! You stuck in mud - done! With log no problem, but without - NYET!

[@АлександрГорбунов-ш8ы]

нельзя не согласиться

[@RipperRzN]

Will be fixed in the next modification. The ultralight log made of nanomaterials will take its rightful place.

[@kellerweskier7214]

Update 1.01 has been delayed. Stalinium Log might not show up in next update.

[@muratsa100]

@@kellerweskier7214 wtf log is?

[@penapvp2230]

THE TANK IS ITS OWN LOG

[@kingcobra856]

T-14 Armata is a nice looking tank

[@ThePyroRussian]

It looks like a space tank.

[@derpypotatos4610]

Who knows maybe later on in the years it successor will be fighting in mars. :)

[@derickgabrillo1579]

King Cobra 21 super futuristicy

[@Cnupoc]

PL01 is still a concept tank only for now, altho it looks futuristicly indeed

[@Chrinik]

The PL01 is small...it´s a light tank.

[@RedEffectChannel]

Awesome video man! Armata doesnt deserve all that hate, but since there is a lot of missinformation spreading around, its not really surprising people jump on bandwagon and hate on Armata. As you said, we should not mix politics and military equipment.

[@flyingbusa3407]

armata: sexiest tank ever made

[@fulcrum2951]

Agreed. The tank is quite an interesting design with the crew being in an armored capsule rather than the typical tank layout

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

its not about mis information, its about history. Well established facts that previous military tech from that region is held together with staples and tape. Nothing against them, They are people just like us, but its like this. Think of the level of shit that comes out of china, now if you were to buy a TV for example, same brand, same price, one made in china vs one made in japan, Histroy tells us that your more likely to have a better product from japanese manufacturers than chinese. Its the exact same with Russia, name one truely dependable russian vehicle thats on par with say a toyota landcruiser or hilux. Even the terrorists use hilux utes cut down and turned into technicals.

[@fulcrum2951]

fhhsvnggbh its also well established fact that one should not underestimate their enemies even though they seem weak

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Actually the Russians have always been pumping out highly reliable military equipment since the second WW. Not to mention cost efficient. German vehicles would often break down or even catch fire. And they could rarely be repaired on site. And their vehicles were stupidly heavy because they seemed to prioritise more raw material over the efficient use of the stuff. Why the hate? You speak of history. History says the Russians were the innovators.

[@CarlsonWDane]

Matsimus this is why i love your videos. Your about proper facts, versus personal opinion. So much misinformation out there.

[@suhansbansal3082]

Finally an unbiased view on Russian Tanks.

[@jds6206]

Hardly. The author supposes it will be manufactured: it isn't.

[@pavlovicdalibordp]

I think this is the best Channel on KZbin when it comes to talk neutral about own and foregin military Equipment! Some additional informations: i read an article saying the russian Military is planing to operate the T14 autonomous in the near future so they took the first step in this direction with the unmanned turret. It was said there sould be squads of 5-6 T14 and only one of them has an 3 man crew which is giving orders to the other "drone" T14. In my opinion this is a real nice concept and it will also reduce human casualties on the battlefied. Really nice Tank and in my opinion more than competitive the the western counterparts!

[@TheAKgunner]

I wouldn't want to face a T-14 in combat. Too many of it's capabilites are unknown.

[@ThePerfectOwnage]

TheAKgunner You won't have to. it can kill you from 12km away😂

[@jessegm1]

Fazer Only on salt flats because those are the only places on earth having flat 12km

[@CDAT1AD]

I would love to, an M-829-A3 will rip it to shreds.

[@РусскийПерец-б4г]

facing someone is not measured by distance but by a contact.

[@TheAKgunner]

CDAT1AD I doubt that. We know nothing about it's armor.

[@Otsiisbest]

Kv-2 much better..

[@perrinayebarra]

Joseph Stalin glad to have you back.

[@waldemarvfrenckell]

Joseph Stalin KV-2 is the best

[@wendigo_0]

Unmanned turret can't face a 152mm vodka-bottle thrower gun

[@miguellopes2452]

Mario Malkav imagine a bottle of vodka that as a perimeter of 15,2cm XD

[@wendigo_0]

It wouldn't be enough for the entire crew, just for the gunner (maybe...) :D

[@theother1281]

I love the conceptual design of the T14; as big a leap forward as the T34. Whether the T14 can achieve battlefield reliability only time will tell. One has to have availability, reliability and repairability concerns on a tank that has so many complex systems. But I do think the next generation of NATO tanks will be conceptually similar.

[@Attaxalotl]

The T-14 doesn't seem like a next-gen tank. It seems like a current-gen tank done pretty well.

[@Z45HR4]

I am honestly curious where you see all this "hate for Russian vehicles." From my experience, the only hate I have ever noticed is toward American armored vehicles. The T-14, on the internet, is widely considered to be the end-all be-all in tank design. While the Abrams is often criticized incredibly harshly despite being the best combat proven tank fighting in the world today.

[@tylerdurden7927]

I guess he's referring to the reasons provided for the hate. Like the reliability, unmanned turret, etc being used to call it crap. Of course Abrams falls victim to the same kind of hate.

[@DerDop]

because the internet is filled with russian bots and russian fanboys.

[@luisparga7830]

Zashra

[@snaxx82]

Where did u get the idea from that Abrams is the best combat proven tank? I reckon a T90 withstanding TOW is far more impressive.

[@yobob591]

Zashra wait who criticizes the Abrams? All I ever hear is endless circle jerking saying that it’s an absolute god tank and that one Abrams could destroy a dozen T-90s and shit like that

[@MrSupasonics]

Just like you mentioned, from my point of view, T-14 is Russian effort to escape from their century old armor doctrine. But it is hard to decide whether the tank is good or bad at current state. Nothing is confirmed yet, and we don't know how the mass production type will looks like. Lots of overestimated hypes are floating around, from propaganda news sites like Sputnik or Russian forums and game forums, which I don't trust anyway. Even its ability follows their advertisement, I'm dubious how many T-14 will be fielded under their own recent sequester. Their economic strain will be the great factor for their amount.

[@ivanlagrossemoule]

Sounds reasonable. Everytime Russia builds something new, the official claims are mildly exaggerated, while every journalist and idiots on forums turn every functionality into something a million times more powerful.

[@sextreme1049]

it is made for a nuclear war.wave its not even budge so draw your own conclusions

[@pashapasovski5860]

MrSupasonics they are not exporting Armata, no need for propaganda! It's not a good idea to make a bad tank and make Putin angry! The makers would meet their maker,hahaha! Believe me ,they threw even a kitchen sink at it,before they showed up in front of the President!

[@smithnwesson990]

Alex Dominik The Americans would not let that happen. Putin believes in projecting strength he invaded Crimea with his insane claim that it belongs to Russia which any country could say back on the days another country was part of it at one point. He sent in the Kremlin propaganda machine to make it seem like all these people wanted to join Russia. Kind of like how he does not show the 100 thousand people protests in Russia. He is all about their image which is why he took complete control of all media.

[@tylerdurden7927]

SmithN' Wesson - That's not exactly accurate. Saying that Crimea "belongs" WITH Russia (not "to") is also part of the propaganda used to to justify to Russians the actions taken...which came with consequences...hence the need to justify the actions. The real reason it was taken was for it's strategic value. Particularly the Naval Base at Sevastopol. It's their only naval base at a warm water port and they were leasing it from Ukraine...Ukraine was busy moving towards the EU's sphere of influence. (not as heart touching as the other story. So it doesnt make for good propaganda) The other side is not innocent either. They were trying to get Ukraine under it's influence to wrestle away that port and also because Ukraine is a kind of hub for russian natural gas going to the EU. Which is what prompted Putin's actions. The unrest created by the ousting of Yanukovich provided the opportunity and justification Putin needed. Ironically, this unrest was cultivated by the US and friends so as to obtain government that is more agreeable. Crimea's been trying to reunify with Russia since the breakup of the USSR. So it's nothing new. The majority of people living there were and are not only ethnically and linguistically russian but pro russian too. So a referendum would always have easily been in favor of seceding to Russia. They were just always denied a referendum. Add to that the fact the that the interim Ukrainian government passed a few laws that can be summerized as discrimination against russian speakers living in the country (it was retracted soon afterward, but the damage was aready done)...as well as news spreading of an extremist group shoving russian speakers into a building and putting it on fire. All that just added more motivation for Russian speakers to vote in favor of joining Russia. Btw, the majority in Crimea are Russian speakers. It also means those who were against in the referendum were a minority and some were probably suppressed by the majority and some were probably simply too scared to vote "against" (the KGB still fresh in their memories). Hence the vote statistic that is obviously higher than it should be, yet would still have gone the same way if it were truly free. But none of that matters because, legally, the whole of Ukraine would have to have voted for it to be legal...i.e. IF the government at the time could even be considered legitimate. That is where the disagreement lies. Anyway, in the end, most in Crimea really did want to join Russia.

[@ath3lwulf533]

crew survivability big plus, unmanned turret also a plus can put in a much bigger gun now.

[@classicgalactica5879]

And no situational awareness for the crew when the optics are taken out. And rest assured, any tank crews facing this tank will make doing that a top priority.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

How would you take the optics out? Vision blocks and scopes cant be damaged in a regular coupola?

[@classicgalactica5879]

Ever heard of a rifle? Perhaps a Machine Gun?

[@NamTran-lt1ty]

Classic Galactica yeah let try hit some 5.56 to the tank that 2 km away while it moving

[@classicgalactica5879]

No offense, but I gave up speculating on this tank a long time ago, only Russia will know it's capabilities, and they probably aren't telling. But warfare being as it is, people will eventually figure out it's weaknesses and exploit them. And optics are a prime target on any tank; armored vehicles don't stay on the move all the time.

[@thejediknight203]

Fair enough. It didn’t break down, but the fact that it took so long for them to figure out that the “handbrake” is on speaks a lot to the quality of their training, and it is hilarious 🤣

[@Yay4IamCute]

To hell with T-14!!!!!!!! *KV-2 For Live!* *KV-2 Stronk Tenk!*

[@ls200076]

Angry Marine Fuck off weakling, hope you get crushed by a Baneblade.

[@miguellopes2452]

elektron117 calm your tits

[@ldklldkl1713]

Armata is shit. No 152 mm.

[@Yay4IamCute]

elektron117 You do understand that Adeptus Astartes and Imperial Guard are on the same side right? O_o *RIGHT?* So saying that i should be crushed by a Baneblade it makes no sense....

[@zoki.to974]

t-50 will drill your ass in circles... you lucky they cannot be in same battle ;)

[@Philtopy]

just the assumption that something is bad just because "the others" made it is just rediculous. If history tells us one thing, then it is that you should never underestimate small men in black pajamas.

[@Thrawnmulus]

I didn't know there was hate on this tank, I mean, it has the doubly good idea of the unmanned turret with a bigger gun, it have active denial system and the crew is super well protected. If I remember correctly when NATO advisors saw this tank they said they didn't have an effective way to deal with it on the ground.

[@xjboy550]

Yep this tank wasn't designed to kill western tanks as if that ever happens then it won't matter who wins as we will all glow in the dark and have permanent orange Afros! it is to kill older tanks if they ever meet or dealing with RPG armed irregulars and that it looks like it will do well

[@MrPancake777]

James Hunter where exactly did your read that part about those "NATO advisors"?

[@PosProductions]

Right, no. NATO has a TON of ways to deal with it on the ground.

[@scotthulsey8763]

It doesn't matter that the turrent is not occupied because when a sabot round passes through the turrent it will cook.

[@scotthulsey8763]

That being said I'm glad they put crew survivability on the forefront.

[@trinitikorneli2750]

Matsimus, thank you for providing simple education to the people.

[@giostisskylas]

Most people do not understand the Russian development philosophy for weapon systems. The T14 Armata is the first step of the Russian developers to automate the weapon system 'tank'. Due to the separation of crew and combat technique, the Armata is ideal for replacing the crew with computers. In Russia, these development processes are always evolutionary. In 10 years we will see Armata tanks that are no longer controlled by humans. Instead, self-optimizing computer systems will fight the battle. First remote controlled and later completely independent.

[@moegyi2077]

And, Koalitsiya-SV too.

[@abhishekparmar6702]

10 yrs what a joke, unless I'm missing something, such radical revolution in tank philosophy will take multiple decades, however the fact remains that Russia is the first one to arrive at the next logical step in tank and armoured vehicles warfare.

[@LjubomirLjubojevic]

@@abhishekparmar6702 Russians defense industry does not suffer from competition like independent wester weapon producers. Different Russian weapons producers are all state-owned an state is free to combine progress of individual company/designers or even tell them to pool their efforts. System designed for Suhoy airplanes is built so MiG company can also used them for their own planes. Same goes with engines and other parts. Just look what Russian defense industry produced in last 15 years: S-400, Poliana system for integrating huge numbers od anti-aircraft units in a unified C&C that can automatically choose which one will attack which target using multiple radars spanning several hundreds of kilometers appart, Kinzhal hypersonic missile, hovitzers? that can fire a salvo of 6-7 shells with different trajectories so they all reach destination in just few seconds. Their defense industry is unified and SHARES knowledge and technologies, similar like Chine, but unlike selfish and greedy western companies.

[@abhishekparmar6702]

I completely agreed with you. Are you kidding me! My country's entire defense is built around Russia weaponry, it just I'm skeptical and reserved about timeframe that is 10 yrs, unless my country seriously makes commitments to RnD and financing joint weapons development program. In my humble and quiet possibly wrong opinion, 10 yrs is too less or more accurately over estimating Russian defense innovation and implementation capability

[@theinquisitor8112]

Then what happens if the enemy just so happens to, yknow, hack into the remote signals? They could override the original programming and turn it against the side it once fought for, if the Russians aren't careful. Total independence in a military vehicle, especially something as dangerous as a tank, is a horrible idea if you ever mean to deploy it against anyone beyond relatively weak militia/guerilla forces or a nation lacking any real cyber warfare capabilities. Keep the human element to at least some degree, I say; a human can't be hacked.

[@dmitrit.4862]

First of all, great video! I really enjoyed watching it and couldn't resist to subscribe. Best regards from Germany, Matsimus. The hate towards the T-14 was immense when it was shown for the first time. Journalists, politics, experts...pretty much everyone had something to say. It was hilarious when Norinco even claimed that their VT-4 had superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems. Well, too bad that we still don't know what's inside the T-14 and how it really performs, Norinco simply came up with their own opinion, ignoring the fact that no one except a few figures (including Vladimir Putin) know what's really inside the new tank. Norinco even fell for the "rehearsal breakdown", claiming that the transmission is not well-developed although the tank was (accidently) put on brakes by the unexperienced driver.

[@8000jk]

Dmitri T. that is hilarious considering the VT-4 is an export version tank. Chinese junk tanks (especially export versions) cannot even be compared to advanced concepts presented by the T-14. Even the domestic type 96 tank (used by China) lost a wheel during the 2016 tank biathlon.

[@nicoletingey3325]

Fuck no kidding

[@raychoi4994]

When some Chinese junk made some claims like that, you know Russia is not superpower anymore

[@somerandomguy5995]

Officially my proudest fap.

[@Combat1]

Here, have a reply

[@iuploadrandomthings7783]

DatRussianSniper Here, have a like!

[@cwils3867]

WhiteWolfGaming here have a dead toddler

[@iuploadrandomthings7783]

Mcsquizzy65 Plays here, have my babies!

[@justrandomman2415]

Some Random Guy here have some napkins

[@FarremShamist]

One of the things I've thought about for the Armata is that clearing a jam in the system is no longer possible on the field since it's an unmanned turret. Might make field repairs harder, which is strange for russian doctrine in the past.

[@WeebLord69]

The doctrine of T-14 is not based on repairing the turret , but literally changing it in 1-2 hours with a new turret , since it is modular and there is an engineering variant of the T-14 chasis literally made for that kind of repairs.

[@TheFirefist13]

The T-14 Armata is a beautiful tank

[@Steve211Ucdhihifvshi]

it looks a bit like the Israeli main battle tank.

[@tirelesscloud7755]

Bashing Russian tanks? You should see how much hate the Abrams get.

[@ushikiii]

Not that much really.

[@ihatecabbage7270]

Not many hate, in fact the Abrams is praised too hell. Just that it's too expensive to buy.

[@Chilukar]

@@ihatecabbage7270 The Abrams is an amazing tank. The problem with it, more than the outright cost, is the logistics. The US is probably the only military in the world who can reliably get that much fuel to a battlefield.

[@beerlover1081]

@@cejannuzi except that isn't the version of Abrams that is fielded by the US Army. Saudi Abrams are really a shadow of what an American Abrams is

[@melgross]

Charles Jannuzi not really.

[@desrumeauxjeansebastien7336]

12'10'': Russia used to do good with less money by improving what she's got and then permitting to create better.

[@logantc.1353]

who needs blowout panels when you can survive getting the turret blown off!

[@drippyboi225]

That will not stop the tank 🤫

[@asagk]

Replacing the existing force over time certainly makes sense, since it alows to debug flaws, put upgrades and bug fixes, and when it finally replaces a larger part of the existing battle tanks, it will be a mature main battle tank then. Certainly the best approach to do replacements... I also agree that russian tanks are certainly under estimated here in western public. They are pretty decent pieces of equipment and quite reliable compared to most of our western counterparts. There low profile in the past was designed due to their most common environment, which is forrest and plains. We are lucky we never expirience the mishap to see our western tanks in their environment again after WW2. The much taller western tanks easily become victims there cause they are much easier spotted then the past russian tanks. And actually I am also wondering why the T-14 is so tall. I really don't get it why that is... I do not believe there is a change in russian position about the advantage of lower profile tanks. But of course for some reason T-14 is taller the the former russian counterparts and the russians for some reason do not seem to worry about that. Any clue what that could be about? Or do they simply believe their active proetcion systems are already so good, that they can afford to have taller tanks? I am wondering...

[@polarisraven5613]

If the rumors are true,this might be temporary? The turret and crew cabin were said to be somewhat independent, as they are planning to use this same vehicle for a variety of military roles, allowing the turret to be removed and the vehicle refitted with another system. So basically, if the automation rumor is true, that turret, if they decide to keep it (with their tight budget, this is a very high possibility), may be placed on a much lower profile vehicle.

[@BrosFront]

@@polarisraven5613 almost right... the tower is a drone project that then takes off.. and the basis of the machine with the crew can change on the battlefield to another depending on the battle )))

[@ДмитрийКаллистов]

В танке Abrams есть кофеварка. В Т-14 теперь есть самовар.

[@Ye4rZero]

Because in modern war a tanks most likely threat isn't from other tanks like ww2, it's from aircraft. Th extra height is negligible.

[@kristjanbaselj]

@Hammer Of Crom you are a bit wrong. The a munition is still stored in a carousel at the bottom of the tank,but it is away from the crew. The crew is stationed in the front of the haul in an armoured capsule. The turret doesn't have any armour, only against 30mm auto cannon rounds.

[@riah6918]

I will say that the T-14 is getting a lot of hate that it doesn't deserve, it's essentially a prototype and people bash this thing like they've had hands-on experience which they obviously haven't. I'm glad the Russians are changing their view on MBT's and hopefully this one doesn't become a Jack in the Box when the ammorack is hit.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

NATO has their share of jack in the boxes too. Also with Abrams the ammo while can blow out, the ammo itself isnt well protected.

[@telurkucing5006]

This still jack in the box but this time no one dead just lose a turret, so driver just back to base installed new turret and its good to go, some western tank still had some of its ammo inside the tank like leopard at middle left tank body, look at turks leopard that explode with jack in the box situation, so no tank in good shape when got penetrated

[@snaxx82]

not a prototype anymore.

[@kisscola]

I guess hate or sceptisism was partly caused by the huge number of new videos called "Top 10 Tanks' & 'Worlds Best Tanks" which all featured the T14 as the new best tank, even it was still a prototype.

[@thewitcher69]

it's not a prototype anymore

[@kisscola]

That's why I said "was".

[@filipzietek5146]

It wasn't a prototype but a pre production series which basicly means it was final version given for military trials

[@kisscola]

Ok, I think this is going wrong. I meant that while the T14 was still a prototype what noone has even seen, it was put on so many videos on youtube as the worlds best tank. I was talking about the past, not the tank we literally see in this video.

[@filipzietek5146]

kisscola ah ok, yeah you are right in this case

[@jojohnston761]

As with most hardware. Training and tactics plays a big role. Building 100 tanks and creating 100 well trained tank crew is what seems to be the way to go in peace military force. Quality over quantity. Hardware can be replaced well train crews take time.

[@nutcrackit7396]

Quite honestly fuck the haters. If I was building an army this would be the tank I would purchase to equip it with. And i'm a American

[@antred11]

I agree on the silly haters, but in the same spirit I would be careful about proclaiming this tank to be particularly good. At this point, we have so little verifiable info on the T-14 that there is an equal chance of it being total shit, just a solid tank or the be-all-end-all of MBT development.

[@nutcrackit7396]

well I would at least take concepts from it. a crew that basically can not be killed because they are not in the turret is a really good idea.

[@nutcrackit7396]

person, I do not give a damn how i type a sentence on youtube. This is not a formal document or discussion.

[@thepezfeo]

I can't recall ever hearing anything positive about tanks with unmanned turrets, mainly just problems. (I've only heard of small number of tanks designed with an unmanned turret)

[@victorbrunswick]

Grammar and spelling -- the deus ex machina of online debate LOL

[@russki4780]

This tank can also work as a drone operated by the crew far way behind front lines if needed to save manpower at crucial situations.

[@frankdukes3253]

The Armata platform is amazing. I really like how Russia is making everything have more than one purpose to maximize their budget. The modernization program Russia is in the middle of is really bringing a lot of new technology to the table. Also I read the other day that the Iraqi special forces. Their elite troops that took back Mosul are trading their M1a1 or whatever variant they have for Russian T-72's? Not sure, but apparently the Russian tanks are more reliable in the Iraqi climate.

[@augusto8821]

So wirklich modern ist die korrupte und inkompetente russische Armee ja nicht gerade

[@thriddy8191]

Russia: **Makes the T-14** New Zealand: The Bob-Semple Tank is finna end this tank's career.

[@unkn0wn_kgb]

I live in NZ first time I hear about this. Google it, what a fucking joke. A+ however for the effort

[@shmeckle666]

Russia’s economy is relatively small, but Russia also has little to no debt compared to the US, Europe, China, etc.. This allows for a great deal more flexibility and responsive time and economic focus if needed. Russia’s little to no debt, and no foreign debt, is something no one, on any sides, tends to bring up or focus on.

[@sosig6445]

recent sanctions also made Russia much more self sustaining. Previusly they had to import many food products from south europe, as well as machinery from Germany. Now they started to produce their own machines in much greater numbers and variaty, and to solve the exotic food problem they did some kind of agro-engineering wisardry and made profitable tomato farms where no one knew it was possible or profitable. I don't even get why russia was sanctioned in the first place. How the fuck do you plan to bring down a country's economicly when said country holds 10% of the bloody land avaible on earth and has access to inexhaustable amounts resources, as well as all important rare strategic minerals (Uranium, Titanium, Thungsten etc), while only having to feed 150 million mouths with their metric fuckton of arible land?

[@RedRider1600]

@@sosig6445 Remember the Soviet Union? It was larger than Russia alone. It collapsed in 1991. The Soviet Union lost the cold war, bankrupting itself in an arms race with the wealthiest country on earth.

[@zidorovichburblyatya2862]

@@RedRider1600 Thank Yeltsin and some idiot defectors for internal political sabotage.

[@Sundara229]

@@sosig6445 They are still very dependend on western electronics and computers. But that might shift in favor of China in the future.

[@VisibilityFoggy]

@@Sundara229 - So they'll then be dependent on stolen copies of western electronics and computers. ;)

[@TheoSloat]

If you need a good tank to go from point B to point A french tanks run good.

[@sovietsymp803]

Jhonny Abbes no no, you’re legally gay

[@sovietsymp803]

Jhonny Abbes no no, you’re legally gay

[@vitalygolubchik1535]

Lmao 😂

[@arjunmadan318]

Haha I'm shitting baguettes due to sheer laughter.

[@whyare2020]

I can't shake the fact that every time I see this tank it looks like a life size version of the tank you get with plastic army men.

[@Tsirkon]

I don't really care how hated the T - 14 is , or how weak it is . The tank still looks really cool to me . The idea in the T - 14 is really great it saves it's crew by making the armor in the body of the tank strong (and also the place where the crew are ) and they don't really need to train/hire new crews since can just use the survived crew from another destroyed T - 14 And I really like how the tank won't even move if the crew hit the handbrake

[@ChrisRedfield--]

Russia's future unmanned vehicle fleet

[@filipzietek5146]

Also excuse me but Until early 1980s soviet tanks were much better protected than Nato tanks. T-54 1947 had thicker armor than King Tiger not to mention centurion etc T-64 compared to Leo1 or M60 was in another league in terms of armor T-80b was in service before any nato 3rd generation tank T-80u and t-72b were unpenetrable from the front with atgms and kinetic amunition avilible at that time which is the official result of US tests Also russians fielded active protection system Drozd in the 1980s, it was battle tested in afghanistan. Afghanit can protect against top down, the anti missle is fired to the side and and the explosion is directed upward taking out the atgm. Seriously shitting on sovet tanks and comparing t-72m to the M1A1 like during gulf war is like comparing Leo1 and t-80u....

[@bengolo8293]

I agree. Russian tanks mostly were 10 years ahead of their American counterparts during the cold war. T-55 came out about 10 years before Patton. And T-72 came out 10 years before Abrams, so of course one could expect some superiority from the more modern western counterparts in a tank vs tank comparison. But overall it was the russians who came with their models first. And their design were mostly based on old experienced of what had worked in the past, and the T-34 became the father of the new tank family of T-44, T-55, T-62, T-72, T80, and T-90. And the Russian tanks tended to have a lower siluette than the American tanks, which made them a smaller target and harder to spot... and tanks with smaller turrets also tend to have better armour. They of course tend to be crampier, but that problem wasn't that big for the Russians since they had a conscription army and used short men as their tankers. The Russian tanks had sloped armour that worked well on the Panther and T-34 tanks in world war 2, and that design was also used further to their other tanks. The Russians were also early users of chobham type of armour, cage armour and reactive armour. And the T80U was frontally immune against projectiles from the first Abrams versions of the 1980s. To me Armata seems like a completly new tank that doesn't look much like a t-64 or T80. And this might have to do with Russian army reforms from a conscription mass army of the cold war towards a smaller high quality proffessional force. The falling birthrates doesn't allow for a mass army anymore, and since the Russian economy only about the size of Spains and since a Russian worker on average only produce 25% of what an American worker do... I guess its also hard to get enough economic muscles to support a mass army. If you have much robots and machines making all shit in the factories, you can dress all men in uniforms... but if you have poor less automated economy its more of a dilemma on how many men can be set aside from the workforce and put into the army. Many are skeptical however, and thinks that Russias army reform will not be effective because of lack of funds, and that they will be stuck with old Soviet equipment for a long time to come, and forced to make expensive upgrades of old weapons to keep them up to date.

[@ValentineC137]

"T-54 1947 had thicker armor than King Tiger not to mention centurion etc" that is false, the T-54 had a 120mm frontal upper and 100mm lower sloped steel plate and 200 rounded on the turret (Later T-54s had a different turret design with arguably more armor protection and the frontal armor reduced to 100mm on the upper front) the King tiger had a 150mm top sloped plate and a 100mm lower sloped, 185mm on the flat turret front. on a side note it's fun to think that the king tiger's 8.8cm had better penetration capabilities than the T-54's 100mm in the early times, tho later shells made for the 100mm provided higher peneration values than the 8.8's the T-54 having just slightly more than 200mm of penetration while the king tiger had around 230mm pen, tho as i said, later shells for the T-54 did have around 240mm pen.

[@filipzietek5146]

Armor of the t-54 1947 was sloped at 60 giving it similiar effective thickness but the sloping itself was also helpfull compared to KT which is less sloped. 1947 turret had arguably better sloping than later version but it had a shot trap, effective thickness was around 250mm Caliber is not everything, the size of the charge is very important. Also remember that t-54 is a medium tank that weighs 2x less than the KT, is more mobile, has similiar firepower and superior armor and much lower profile. Even if you consider t-54 to be weaker it was still damn strong for a medium tank.

[@ValentineC137]

as I quoted, you said thicker, not more effective. Just wanted to inform anyone who would be checking the comments, or even you if you had gotten some information from a false source. and never would i dare question that a medium tank would be slower or less mobile than a heavy, just adding to the topic of "soviet tanks were much better protected than Nato tanks" and i personally would classify the T-54 as being more of an MBT than just a medium tank.

[@filipzietek5146]

I had effective thickness in mind so i get your point.

[@tomlynch7750]

Great video Matsimus!

[@oldmech619]

Many years ago my tanker father said to me, in a war, the west would have a big tech advantage, but after 60 days, our tanks could not keep up the repairs to our tech equipment. Russian: Keep It Simple, Keeps on running. Over, Under, and On Target

[@augusto8821]

Stupid. The western logistic is much more efficient. If you have a Lada or a Mercedes, which car would you trust?

[@oldmech619]

@@augusto8821 Plz check the starting words. “Many years ago…….” That was back in the 1965. Cold War

[@SteelbeastsCavalry]

Great analysis as usual.

[@mihan2d]

SteelbeastsCavalry Agreed. After fairly biased video on autoloaders this is surprisingly good and fair analysis.

[@noahtigner8413]

I love it when people say that a tank can take out an aircraft carrier and how old and bad the Nimitz class is when it is still better than everybody else's and now we are developing a new one that is far superior to the best in the world which is also ours.

[@snaxx82]

you do realise that Aircraft carriers are nothing but big convenient targets for subs, planes, missiles.

[@ilikepie2376]

@@snaxx82 thats why there are escorts

[@theinquisitor8112]

@@snaxx82 Dozens of escorts. Ever hear of the carrier strike group concept? Dozens of destroyers, frigates, and subs surround the carrier, linking together air/missile defenses to form a defense grid designed almost solely to protect the carrier. EDIT: Destroyers and several aircraft can also make use of depth charges, amongst other weapons, yo attack enemy submarines. A direct hit isn't even necessary to critically damage the thing.

[@VladLad]

@@theinquisitor8112 there was something about a cheap swedish sub sneaking up within strike distance on an american carrier undetected in one of the wargames that countries like to play

[@stupidburp]

I think that the overall design decisions seem to be good with T-14 but we do not know yet if there are any serious vulnerabilities or deficiencies. For a new Western tank I would suggest including many similar features. However I think a front engine design with a rear hatch like the Merkava is a better layout even with the inherent mechanical and situational awareness challenges. The mechanical challenges can be overcome in various ways. For situational awareness using a large number of sensors all over the tank linked to a helmet display as in the F-35 should be a large enough improvement to avoid the need for sticking your heads out. Distributed sensors with overlapping fields of view would have enough redundancy to maintain vision even after multiple RPG hits. If you are getting hit dozens of times then you should be backing up and getting out that situation anyways before they wear through ERA and follow up with some ATGM. If you had a head out you would have been dead after the first RPG.

[@elusive6119]

Yes, that's right! 3D Helmet is probably implemented in the prototypes (based on the systems of the helicopter Night Hunter).

[@gruntdetonators]

Fun fact: Most tanks commanders haven't stuck their head out of a vehicle mid-combat since the Korean war.

[@stupidburp]

Sticking out heads has still been common recently when not under fire. Buttoning up doesn't take long if threats are expected but ambushes by RPG or IED can happen at any time. Even remote machine gun stations were uncommon until very recently. Adapting to this need to have heads inside for as much as possible has led to less visibility which creates hazards of its own. This is why better systems for all around visual sensors are being developed for upgrades and future tanks.

[@lostinthesauce6409]

i dont think that the armata need a frontal engine cus russians are not stupids to not make an undefetable compartment for the Armata. and about the Merkava the it hade a sirious problems as the uncontrollable fier and burned tanks in Lebanons war 2006

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Israeli commanders did tend to lookout over their hatches.

[@brentsnache4760]

Spasibo, Maximus, for producing an intelligent and objective analysis. That's pretty rare nowadays...

[@ARXDMOS]

people raggin and taggin on Russian military capabilities. Pretty sure in Syria, Russia showed what its capable of, which was beyond anyone's dreams

[@Max_Da_G]

T-72, T-80 and T-90 are actually very well protected tanks. Experience in Chechnya has shown that losses were not due to poor design or construction. Many T-72s and T-80s were returning from missions in a city of Grozniy with 8-10 armor penetrations but were still in a driving condition and with crew safe. T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 are criticised for having the ammo in a fighting compartment, but what few realize is that the location right in the middle of the tank is the BEST PROTECTED SPOT. The whole "jack in a box" comment comes from those that don't know about tanks combat loadout. Russian tanks carry HE-FRAG as a matter of course. Explosion of HE-FRAG ammo is what rips the turret off the tank. If that happened to western tanks, that same thing would happen since we are talking tens of kilograms of HE going bang. Bustle with the blow-out panels won't save Abrams of Leo. That turret will get blown far and crew will be dead from crushed structures, overpressure and spalling. Interestingly Abrams ALSO happens to carry some ammunition in its fighting compartment. So the talk that Russians never placed any thought into crew survivability is nonsense. Making the tank survivable by as many means as possible means making crew a lot more likely to survive.

[@johnallen7230]

Rolled out in 2015 and exactly 12 have been built......What happened to 2300 by 2020??? ROTFLMAO

[@sturmgeschutze3070]

Production takes a long time to speed up, as they make more factories produce them, it’ll get streamlined and I have no doubt 2300 by 2020 is possibke

[@jbennett1391]

Im an American U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams gunner. I'd blow that T series shit up lol. But seriously, now and days, modern tanks these days don't vary too much in capabilities and armor quality as any sabot round will blow up a tank regardless of armor quality. What really matters these days is the crew. Crew knowledge, skill, and cohesion with eachother. Really all it is, is a who sees who first, who shoots first, and who hits first. Now, for this T-14 Armata, an unmanned turret I can tell you will already have issues in combat. I'm sure if one component goes inoperable, which can and will happen, will completely make it not able to engage any targets and destroy quickly and effectively. As to say for the M1A2 Abrams, we could have the TIS sight go out, but still have the GAS sight or even the fish bowl. Or if the electronic means of firing the weapon goes inop, we have more than one way to fire our rounds off, like the master blaster, or manual firing. There are a lot of things. And as stated in this video, the auto turret for the Armata not being able to identify targets as quickly and efficiently will be the death of all of these Armata tanks as having a crew manning the turret of say the Abrams would destroy that tank quickly. One sabot is all it takes, doesn't matter what armor as stated before. Hell, we even have something called a super sabot.

[@U6kCtBuN]

ahh thats some fucking thick oozing irony right there

[@jamesbednar8625]

Great video!!! Even the "vaunted" Tiger & Panther tanks of WWII fame broke down a lot. More of those tanks were lost due to mechanical break downs than to combat operations (other than air attacks). This vehicle looks awesome/space-age!! Amazing how all the "experts" of armored vehicles get their information and/or experience from VIDEO GAMES!!! Do some research. Am building a 1:35 scale plastic model kit of this vehicle and appreciate ALL the reference material you provided!!

[@RR-us2kp]

I gave a like because he sticks to facts. Not nationality

[@codymiller4511]

I see tanks as a art form they all have a beauty to them all

[@pallegantzhorn3742]

I think with the shifting focus from tank swarm, to high crew survivability also shows that Russia has moved away from old cold war tatics of world domination, into a more peace keeping role, like in Nato. sometimes it feels like ppl still see Russia a a potential enemy. Russia does not design tanks for big big tank battles anymore ;)

[@secundus6457]

Peace keeping role? Nato?? Have you ever heard about Iraq? Libyan??

[@maxspirin3945]

Palle Gantzhorn So, NATO performs a peace keeping role on this planet???

[@RazielSchnitzel]

>peacekeeping role for NATO? My friend, what alternate reality do you live in? Lemme slide into that fantasy.

[@ckr3167]

Palle Gantzhorn “peacekeeping” don’t be an idiot, look how they took Crimea....

[@darykeng]

NATO and peace keeping, lmao

[@roba4295]

You mean there are people in chat groups who suffer from verbal diarrhea and have no idea what they are talking about? Shocking. Seriously though, you make great videos and I generally agree with you because you do know your stuff. Keep up the good work!

[@stevelacy316]

Pretty good vid comrade .

[@zimi1975]

on paper its a great and interesting concept...like many other tanks that never saw actual fighting...

[@leeSouthend]

0:25 Who needs your own tanks when a team of ninjas can gain entry and drive away in under 10 seconds. Ninjas for the win. ;-)

[@CMDRFandragon]

The irony of thinking that Parade Armata broke down is how friggin flawlessly and well the hand brake kept it firmly super glued to that spot....working just as intended?

[@VisibilityFoggy]

I had the same thought. A few years back I bought an Audi and accidentally hit the (now electronic) hand brake. Couldn't move the thing at all. That made me realize what a good brake it was!

[@selfdo]

The T-14 Armata incorporates many marvelous technologies which, if they actually work in the field, will make this MBT a formidable challenger to the M1A2 and M1A7 Abrams, the Challenger 2, LeClerc, and Leopard 2. However, Russia doesn't have the best track record when it comes to building what is tantamount to a 'science fair on tracks', just look at what a disaster their T-64 was and how they gave up in frustration on the T-95 Black Eagle. The placing of the 3-man crew in an armored capsule in the hull, while it will help with crew survivability (much the same motive driving the Israeli Merkava designs), by putting the tank commander down with the gunner and driver, he won't be doing what tank commanders did best for their mounts: sticking his fool head out of the turret hatch and looking for targets and/or stalking enemy infantry; or liasing with his own fellow infantry either scurrying behind the tank, or, in true Russian fashion, riding 'desanty' on the rear deck! My guess is that the Armata, being expensive, will be reserved for the Russian Federation's Guards tank divisions, in the long-standing "deep penetration" role as originally envisioned by Tuchaschevsky in the 1930s. I'm sure the Russian Army planners are well aware of the defects of this vehicle in the infantry support and/or urban combat role; leaving that job to older, tried designs. This tank is obviously intended to slug it out with the best that Russia's likely opponents will have, either NATO or China, and may yet acquit itself well should such a conflict break out.

[@дмитрийсмирнов-о4ы]

the reputation of Russian tanks, was formed due to the illiterate of their application. Look how many Abrams the Saudis burned and how many leopards the Turks have. Urban combat, it's definitely not for tanks. Mountains are also a threat to tanks. I'm a tankman myself. I served on the t-80. I can say that the tank is very reliable and very easy to control fire. but in my experience, the best tank is the t-72. At least as of 1998.

[@kobrakai9]

Amazing work as always and great approach. Keep that way Matt! 👍

[@lennaertvanmierlo2955]

That’s why they hate it: they’re getting good.... 😉

[@attamans]

No one should think of themselves as being better than others they may face on a battlefield. This happened with the British during WWII. They believed that Japanese could not build a effective fighter plane, sending pilots to the far east with the Sword biplane into combat against Zero fighters.

[@Kharmazov]

One of the most overhyped vehicles in the recent years. Both NATo and the USSR toyed with an unmanned turret concept way back in the 1980's, building several prototypes as a result. The biggest improvement in T-14 is just a leap in its size and mass that is currently on par with 3rd gen. western MBT''s such as Abrams, Leo 2, etc.

[@mbr5742]

Kharmazov Stuff that was "barely doable" in the 80s are household items in the 2010s. Look at electronics, cameras, power consumtion and storage etc. So what did barely work back then is in service (See Puma IFV) today

[@joenuts4099]

Learn to use apostrophes. They aren't speech marks you know

[@l.b.3416]

I think the T14 is more like a "training tank" for its engineers to learn modern electronics etc. because many mordern features who would justify a brand new tank like the ETC cannon, hybrid drivetrain etc. are missing.

[@augusto8821]

It's something Russia wants to build... But cannot

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

Just discovered your channel, and I am very pleasantly impressed by your professionalism, candor, and generally civil tone. What a delightful surprise! With that said, please let me respectfully disagree with you regarding your assessment of the Armata. While I share your view that this tank represents a tremendous step forward for the Russians in terms of crew survivability, this is bought at a tremendous increase in cost, which severely limits the ability of the Russians to field the system in any relevant numbers. There is very little indication that the T-14 is anything more than a substantially more survivable (assuming that its various subsystems all work properly, an assumption that the T-72, T-80, and T-90 should have taught us by now to be rather skeptical about), with no real relevance to existing post-Cold War Russian doctrine. This looks more like "Abrams-envy" than anything else, and while they look impressive enough on parade, I cannot help but wonder just how the Russians would use them in combat. In any event, your presentation was excellent, and I look forward to exploring your channel further. Thank you for your time and effort in providing such a welcome resource!

[@_Matsimus_]

f1b0nacc1 sequence thanks for your time and opinion also sir. I appreciate it.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

And thank you for your kind reply. I hope you will forgive the question, but (aside from a sense of national chauvanism which I suppose we all engage in at times -- I certainly do!) what leads you to consider the Challenger to be superior to the Abrams? I have been most impressed by this wonderful tank of course, but the sensor suite on the Abrams and its superior armor (not to mention its mobility ) seem to me to be important factors that the Challenger does not match. One final question, if you don't mind....what is your opinion of the later model (version 3 and 4) of the Merkava?

[@Manawyden]

Not sure if these points have come up but 2 additional points worth mentioning: 1) The T14 Armarta hull is also used in the new APC/IFV machines, which means production costs will probably be a lot cheaper because of the modular nature. It also means the APC/IFV's are likely to be annoyingly difficult to destroy if the end up sharing defensive technologies compared to existing systems. 2) The Russians are investing an enormous amount of time and money into AI technology (there is even an argument to be made that they are winning that race easily but it's always hard to tell). While I doubt they will be using this technology to operate the vehicle, their networks could be providing enormous amounts of information to the T14 on-board battlespace computer and could easily provide invaluable information to the crew. I bring this up because you mentioned one down-side to sensors being used to operate the vehicle. In the event this information is able to be absorbed and disseminated to vehicles it may well result that knocked-out sensors may not limit a vehicles ability to engage opponents. If battlespace networks run by an AI (or multiple) are able to accurately use geospatial information crossed with enemy force locations the vehicles could continue to effectively engage opponents despite on-board crew not being able to see. The sensor decision could be by-design to also make use of this technology. None of this is hard information of course but worth noting when looking at the ongoing development in Russias military technology.

[@WolfyOfHonor]

Leopards are the best

[@hmshood4142]

I Agree

[@fortnutz-gaming8835]

Agree germans are da best

[@ХРЕНОРЕЗ]

Tigers and panthers were also the best without a dispute, but we all know how it ended. Dear tanks have nothing to do in war.

[@KoishiVibin]

@Rifleman Germany can't count past 5 lol

[@KoishiVibin]

Meh...

[@RitzMatt]

U forgot to mention the fact that its part of Armata Universal Combat Platform and can be changed to suit multiple roles.. lik the T14, T15, T16, 2S35 etc, now i dont think there are much platforms lik this from other countries. Which is a commendable feat. And i hear they are planning for Terminator 3.. :O

[@Artem-sp8rg]

Ritz Matt True, that element is one of the most important of all new Armata series

[@Poctyk]

>And i hear they are planning for Terminator 3. Silly Russia. People already saw Terminator 5. (though not all happy about it) West wins again /s

[@cav1stlt922]

We kinda did that with our old 113s too, didn't we? We used the troop-carrying chassis of same but made mortar carriers out of them, Aussies added turrets and guns while we also turned the 113s into anti-air that we were still using today to some extend, with missiles and guns... anti-tank TOW vehicles, etc. So, wouldn't you consider the M113 an universal platform too?

[@dflatt1783]

4:00 People actually dog a combat vehicle for crew survivability? A tank is only as good as it's crew. Mr common sense says: What's better? 1. A veteran crew already in the conflict zone 2. Green crew that has to be deployed to the combat area to replace the veteran crew

[@richardcramer1604]

Yeah a green crew that doesn't understand why the tank won't move while the brake is engaged (LOL).

[@TakZ000]

Kinda feels good manning a tank that will protect you if getting hit. So it's also good for morale and confidence of the crew.

[@saint_alucardwarthunder759]

the wrong thing is that T72 and T80 were crew survivability tanks of their time - 3 men crew, lower, etc., almost all tanks of those times would loose their crew after a detonation, when Abramses, Leo2s etc. went into production with modern quality, USSR was already collapsing, what's left of it couldn't do shit, and believe me, USSR would've built Armatas in the same amount as T72s, well, a bit less maybe

[@richarddaborn8502]

Any military vehicle in the right hands (well trained crew) is lethal. The Armata is state of the art, I dare say it's crews would be well trained. So yes in the right hands it would be lethal.

[@richarddaborn8502]

@daAnder71 and, who, what, what is, hmmm?

[@jamiemichael3533]

Love the honesty

[@alexevans3276]

Loving the vids man, Keep it up! Love from Wales :)

[@AintImpressed]

"Reading articles on TV" sounds very sad. And so very true these days.

[@Howleye]

The issue of "declining russian demographics" is a complex yet largely missunderstood issue surrounded by a bunch of myths and half truths,, probably the main misconceptions come from the fact that when people think about russia they think mostly of the old soviet union rather than the modern russian federation,, its important to notice that the soviet union had more than twice the population of the russian federation and when the soviet block collapsed all the break away nations took more than half the population with them,, Also right after that the economic collapse that let to the breakup in 91-92 took everyone through an exceptionally shite time during the 90's and early 2000's pretty much in all ex-soviet republics,, with some still slowly crawling to a recovery (ukraine, belarus, georgia, central asia, etc.) this slowed down the birthrates not only in the russian federation but in all the places already mentioned,, But regardless of this issues its true that the russian military its been largely steping away from the old soviet doctrines of quantity over quality,,, even though there is still a lot of quantity around..

[@Sung_Jam]

ive seen american media and even ex military have bashed this tank JUST BECAUSE... nice to see you give your honest opinion

[@qelleri]

I think that having multiple different tank models in service simultaneously is more a problem than advantage. Yes, maybe you can monitor budgets better, but in the end it is massive logistical burden. Tanks need maintenance and most of these parts are not interchangeable. Also different vehicles demand different training and trainers. Not to mention that most of this armoured fleet is becoming obsolete and needs instant upgrading or replacing. Why Russia doesn´t instantly orfer a big patch of T-14 is because they don´t have money and the vehicle is still in test and development stage. They can´t take the risk buying tons of vehicles that end up being unreliable and ineffective.

[@Ifoundnohappinesshere]

0:01 me and the boys rolling though Moscow with me *TANK*

[@hschan5976]

This thing looks like NC Vanguard in Planetside 2 but taller

[@DennisBell-tz2sb]

Matt good production. I do laugh when I see comments. You can tell these individuals have never been in the military let alone have had anything to do with troop support. I remember when a M-60 made me feel safer. Yes USMC 74-87 and a SSgt.

[@namkhanhng1802]

Too modern, too much tech = easier to get damaged in fighting environment. Tank packed with techs fighting in environment with lots of moisture would be a nightmare.

[@TheGreatSovietUnion2]

I'm Canadian, but I have a strong preference for Russian tech. It suits my country better really.

[@lordemarsh6804]

Why all the hate? Its a new tank and like the F-35 it should still have its flaws

[@zedwpd]

Because it's common for the Russians to tout lots of wonder weapons only to have decades of delays and have many never come to fruition. The mighty Russian Army as of March 2020 has 10 Armata tanks.

[@noshit6285]

@@zedwpd there is no mass production yet because they are developing bigger gun 157 mm smooth board gun

[@pashapasovski5860]

It's a genius decision because it can work like a Lego and became a fully autonomous weapon in future!

[@priceostia6292]

No matter how enemy tank seems weak or unreliable, soldiers shouldn’t never underestimate enemy. If a country have proper doctrine, they all don’t want fight multiple times sake of budget, trained soldiers, economy and other risks involving warfare. That means if the country have to fight, the best is single and final battle sure to win is imaginary. To win the final single battle, self conceit is the worst enemy.

[@mtf_nine_tailed_fox385]

Soviet tanks: *exist* Depression angles: *non existent*

[@crocs4304]

That all good and all. But everybody forgets that the T 47 that's like the best vihicle ever made. But no everybody is stupid enough to defend the T 72 while the T 47 would DESTROY Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2s.

[@atomicspartan131]

Lol, technically the T14 does have -10 degrees though