The Truth About Russia's T-14 Armata Tank

[@Taskandpurpose]

Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/31eA2Ck and use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: -7 Days Premium Account -250k credits -Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) -3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger -131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6) Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming Portal.

[@lamalien2276]

Carbon fibre and carbon nanotubes are NOT the same thing. Carbon fibre draws it's strength from the fact its molecules are aligned (like a spider web). Carbon nanotubes are all one covalently bonded molecule, like a diamond. We cannot yet manufacture large objects from such a material.

[@ІванКоваль-й5ж]

First of all: 5:14 👍👍👍 Also, thanks information about Excelsior 👍

[@ІванКоваль-й5ж]

If there would be German B1 again - I'll find money for it, so - ping me.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

The Reasons why Armata (All Armata Platforms) struggle to move into full production are known. It is primarily due to the high cost of procuring Electronics and Optics, wich are procured from western European manufacturers, wich are not delivering or delivering low quantities, due to Embargos and high penal tarrifs caused by Russias foreign politics like the Occupation of Krimea and the ongoing masked War in Donbas and eastern Ukraine, where unmarked russian military units are active in the combat zone

[@liddz434]

Fantastic video mate, good laugh! Well done

[@jonb914]

Most important question: How easily can it be towed with a tractor?

[@rayrobelo7262]

Might need two tractors if the deserting crew decides to put the parking brake before they leave

[@jonb914]

@@rayrobelo7262 Your "engage the parking brake" doctrine clearly makes you more qualified than most Russian generals. I heard two positions have opened up.

[@venonat80]

🤣

[@andrewheale4738]

🤣🤣

[@phillee2814]

Far enough to put good Ukrainian fuel into it. . .

[@thomasridley8675]

Apparently, designing 'the best tank in the world' is easier than actually building them.

[@huwdavies-tallon3305]

Same as the tiger tank ahead of it's time so cost a fortune to make and hard to produce in big numbers.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@huwdavies-tallon3305 👍

[@jamesricker3997]

The biggest problem seems to be the engine It does not deliver the horsepower of fuel efficiency that it was supposed to Because it is underpowered ,it is over stressed and tends to catch fire

[@thomasridley8675]

@@jamesricker3997 👍

[@orlock20]

Also which wins, the tank, or the anti-tank system. Right now, I believe the latest anti-tank systems are leaps beyond what any country is willing to put into a tank to actually survive a hit. Even active defense systems don't protect the crews from top down strikes such as from artillery, dropped bombs and some anti-tank missiles.

[@auto_revolt]

You missed the most important question; does it come with the auto turret ejection system like every other Russian tank that stores ammo in the turret?

[@emirion11]

Yes it does

[@jds6206]

Yes....but wait, there's more.....the M-14's system is an "enhanced auto-turret ejector system".....(it flies farther).

[@michaelcrichton8983]

Yes, but the armored compartments around the crew and the engine should, IN THEORY, allow the vehicle to bravely run away from the battlefield after the turret is destroyed.

[@SKeeetcher]

@victor bruun The joke is about the autoloader exploding when hit which causes the turret and crew members to eject up to a 100 metres.

[@michaelcrichton8983]

@victor bruun it's a joke. The way the autoloader is contructed on every Soviet / Russian tank since the T-72, any damage that breaches the the armor at the base of the. Turret WILL cause all the ammunition to cook off, which will "eject" the turret and the occupants thereof. Or at least their mortal remains, anyway.

[@Vhite]

The 14 in T-14 comes from the overall number of battle worthy tanks of this model that have been constructed.

[@Apophis40K]

That's a realy optimistic astimate

[@SlavicUnionGaming]

thats actually wrong, they built 100 of them

[@Palach624]

@@SlavicUnionGaming They didn't, they have like 20-30 of them and some of those are prototypes. Russia planned to deliver first batch of 25 serials (I think) by the end of 2022.

[@jacksonteller1337]

@@Palach624 🤣🤣🤣🤣 never will happen.

[@Palach624]

@@jacksonteller1337 As I said, time will tell

[@impero101]

This seems like a pretty crazy tank. "Too bad" (or fortunately, depending on perspective) it's just gonna end up abandoned in the mud, without fuel or crew, because it lacks logistic support.

[@impero101]

@Lord Noctus Aha, I see. I'm not as tactically minded. I only went through basic training. I did work as a tools developer in sigint a while ago, but this particular tactic never came up. 😅

[@ub3rk0r3]

They better hope the whole tank is AI controlled when the demoralized crew jumps ship.

[@Orcawhale1]

It's not in active service, due to it still being a prototype.

[@MrMorvana]

For what I know, they weren't even deployed... Like many "Next gen" Russian weapons, it doesn't seems to work well enough to be used in war XD

[@texarkana3781]

@Lord Noctus Ahhh I see, as "barricades" a sort of Maginot line tactic then...fuck mobility! it's so last year! 🤣🤣🤣

[@iglooom]

In Russia even hear a joke: This tank uses such revolutionary stealth-technology, so nobody won't able to see it.

[@glennjanot8128]

The Stealth technology is great. Completely invisible. But when it's engaged, they can't move, shoot or turn it off

[@archer8849]

@@glennjanot8128 russia actually did mass produce T-14 with stealth technology, it's just it so good that even their military can't see their tanks :D

[@podulox]

Revolutionary... Stealth... I get it, I like it.... Ask Marx if he's still a Marxist...

[@glennjanot8128]

@@podulox Would be quite hard to do, since he's been long dead ^^

[@МаксимЖуков-я2н]

@@glennjanot8128 maybe he just uses supreme communistic stealth technology. Maybe communism succedeed and we actually have secret communistic society living among us

[@celinreyes1983]

Fun fact, the T-14 is ultra stealthy. So stealthy, it hasn't been seen in combat so far.

[@deadtime7070]

They are going to send him to war in 2023, that is, soon, but in general I want him to be added to War Thunder

[@celinreyes1983]

@@deadtime7070 😅 That definitely would make the best use of the T-14 Armata.

[@alchosantervin5262]

@@deadtime7070 it’s 2023 Still don’t see em

[@Mother-Russia-Z]

You are a funny child, how do you like this fact? Armata is already destroying Nazis and mercenaries in Ukraine

[@Brian-om2hh]

It has also proven to be rather unreliable, which is a further reason. It also uses Italian built transmission, and gun barrels from Germany.

[@nikolascoffey6453]

the russians thought they were going to replace their T-90s with T-14s but instead they replace their T-14s with T-55s

[@sk-sm9sh]

1:39 that's not an incident, that's ATT (anti tractor tow) system demonstration

[@oasis1282]

Ah they dont need it now farmers died

[@haroldayat2066]

Does it come with tow attachments front and rear, does it have a “jack-in-the-box” gun mount?

[@elitewavez4768]

@@oasis1282 no yesterday a tractor towed a t90

[@walterbrunswick]

@@elitewavez4768 hello from Ukrainian-Canadian 🇺🇦🇨🇦 Слава России 🇷🇺

[@thebrowser6758]

@@walterbrunswick i Pressed Translate and the Russian flag turned into a British one

[@Xaelyrion]

Two days from now, these tanks will be used for the only real purpose for which they were ever created. The Victory Day parade in Moscow. They ordered 2000 of them. They got 20 Tanks and 3 super Yachts.

[@jounisuninen]

In the Victory Parade, with tow trucks.

[@dongleberry4397]

And freed some land in Gelenzheek.

[@cliffterrell4876]

@@jounisuninen they will borrow some Ukrainian farm tractors to pull them around

[@mainhattan6038]

20 Stück. Das ist auch meine Information!

[@alusnvetvegas5092]

@@jounisuninen "In the Victory Parade, with tow trucks." ...Unfortunately the tow truck was also subpar quality. hahahahaha!

[@martinkrivosudsky3977]

The truth? The truth is, they were supposed to have 2500 of them. As of now, there is confirmed number of like 20...? And all I found online was the six t-14 you keep seeing on Moscow parades.

[@riptors9777]

And even then one of em broke down... on parade... in ideal condition... on a road. Yeah.. this is just a propaganda tank

[@martenkahr3365]

@@riptors9777 Exactly. Even if it was user error with the driver putting on the hand brake, that T-14 on the parade still caught fire because of it. Because of a user error that was apparently so easy to make that a parade driver accidentally did it in ideal, calm conditions after having rehearsing the exact actions he had to do. The fuck do they expect will happen when they make conscripts drive it into combat and inevitably start doing panicked soldier things with the controls?

[@torque_original]

Yep, probably 20 plastic models of it for propaganda reasons :)))

[@polmaclin3019]

@@riptors9777 You are right as never before. If it could fight, it would be in Ukraine like a black eagle tank. It is already gone.

[@steveg8102]

there are 6 prototypes, zero are actually deployed.

[@JagaimoNeko]

This tank is so stealthy that it even makes the money, allotted for its construction disappear

[@BEPrimAnim]

>has name written in the olbanian language >has opinion on something russian

[@rougedogo152]

​@@BEPrimAnim >is russian bot >funds to pay you have been used to buy commander yacht >happy to survive on diet of reused plane liquor from coolant system

[@minidevil9584]

But the biggest question is: how high can the turret fly?

[@TANK_LOVER-pb4hz]

It's as much higher than how many calories are in a daily light american snack 😆🙏​@@minidevil9584

[@ZachValkyrie]

The Russian equivalent of "Hooah" is "Ura" (ура) pronounced as one syllable. "Tovarishch" (товарищ) means "comrade" and was originally an informal term of address before the revolution, kinda like "buddy" or "pal," but quickly became formal as the USSR slowly solidified its institutions. Now it is seen as outdated, almost like how we would regard slang from the 50's and 60's.

[@pupsen_93kg]

yeah, thats actually shows how author deep in the topic... trash channel honestly meh

[@HareHaven]

He said it as a joke about how the Russians must be nervous with the new tank design, the actual term in the US is Hoorah thus hooah symbolizes nervousness.

[@DanielAkinkajou]

@@pupsen_93kg what’s your qualification? Unless you have videos talking about your experience as a tanker then your comment has no value.

[@martig1000]

Hurrra !!!! This is correctly :)))

[@ChrisCappy]

Don't get me wrong, I honestly think the T-14 Armata is an outstanding vehicle but like with any armored tank - it has room for improvement. The Abrams is in bad need of some of the new features that the Armata has. Hopefully people see that my jokes are meant in good fun and I mean no harm. See you all next week : D

[@Ziomulex]

Oh hi Cappy how you doing

[@CrayonEater255]

Like what?

[@Memovox]

Russophobia.

[@Venator631]

The Abrams definitely needs a remote controlled crewless turret with a autoloader.

[@CrayonEater255]

@@Venator631 i rather make a new tank instead of doing some dumb shit like that

[@ZedsDeadOK]

We are witnessing what the lack of maintenance can do to a army, just wondering how the shortage of processors have delayed the production of this tank due to it's reliance on automation?

[@repletereplete8002]

they're probably trying to figure out if they can actually use potatoes as a processor;]

[@Blodhelm]

LOL that assumes the T-14 has any of the systems they say it has or whether the whole thing is an elaborate con.

[@Yora21]

Given that they wanted to start production this year, it's probably not going to happen.

[@seamusobrien2675]

over 6 months for my New Mazda 3 so I will forgo my pre order for the T14 Convertible

[@30scottyvader]

You do realize that everything these days has a processor even manually driven cars.

[@yesiamarussianbot3076]

As a tanker I can say I want the manual loader because that extra person is extremely useful while in the field.

[@eugenebelford9087]

I fully agree (I'm not a tanker but a trained army officer). Autoloaders can be a genuine improvement - for example the one that come with the PzH2000 artillery system. Obviously, the kind of firing solutions that system offers cannot be dependent on a human reloading manually. Still, the system does still have a soldier as loader who maintains the stockpile. Plus, the PzH2000 can still fire shells even if the autoloader breaks down. More importantly though is that operating "in the field" requieres many more tasks than just the narrow, weapon system specific tasks - guard duties, camoflaging, maintainence, etc., etc..

[@keithharper32]

I wonder if that was part of Rheinmetal's thinking with the new tank they're working on. They included a 4th crew position despite having an autoloader. This is kind of controversial among armchair tankers and theorists, citing the space the 4th crewman tkaes up would be better served storing more ammo or equipment. But I can see how an extra guy would be useful.

[@yesiamarussianbot3076]

@@keithharper32 Thing is, once you stop at night or late in the afternoon for the bivouac, the tank commander leaves for the briefing. That leaves the other 3 to do the rest of the work. The loader will usually man the machine gun and the radio, for security, leaving the gunner and the loader to do the camouflage, the track maintenance, setup the sleeping spots, prepare food, and do all sorts of other tasks. If you only have 3 crew on a tank most of those tasks in the field will become extremely difficult or outright impossible to do. You simply can not put camouflage netting over a tank in the field by yourself. Also when you are on exercise the tank has this nasty habit of throwing it's track in the middle of the night in knee deep mud while it's raining. You will then need to break the track and put it back on, which with a full crew of 4 is already a very hard and time consuming thing to do. Again usually the loader or the tank commander will man the machine gun and radio leaving the other 3 to do the work. If you have to do that with 2 men it is basically impossible to do. If you never served on a tank, you have no idea how much work and maintenance you need to do to keep the thing going.

[@luther0013]

@@keithharper32 I believe the 4th position on the KF51 Panther is optional and is for the version that comes with a Hero loitering munition launcher so they have a dedicated pilot on board.

[@some_dudes8138]

Minus : the smell of the loader sweat, ammunition gets heavier in the future (needs auto loader)

[@johnjett1274]

I was a Tanker. Back in the late 80s there was an article in Armor Magazine about a Tank that had a two man crew, only one operated it at a time. All other crew duties other than driving was done by Vicky, Voice Integrated Computer. They floated the idea of a Railgun to carry more ammunition. The two crewmen were sitting side by side and Vicky injected them with a sedative to put one asleep and a stimulant to wake the other up. It never got built.

[@isaakfaulk8067]

They already have all the ideas set in place for the future now we just await to gradual implementation of them. I’m wondering what the US will be offering as their next MBT replacement.

[@daviddavidson2357]

@@isaakfaulk8067 Probably something made out of $100 bills and gold bars given the monetary black hole that is US military development.

[@johnjett1274]

The military industrial complex is driving NATO imperialism. I'm ashamed to say that the US and NATO are worse than Nazi Germany. We've become the world's bully.

[@5lanediver]

talk about a fun tank! sign me up!

[@dmpyron2]

IIRC that was the April issue. Road & Track always had an “interesting” test drive (like the NASA crawler) and Hot Rod magazine had some amazing new part or tool.

[@samelioto476]

I have a few doubts about the Russians being able to make all that automation work and more importantly, keep working.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Not only that, I don't think they can afford to maintain all the advanced systems.

[@benbaselet2026]

I would not underestimate russian automation. They already did pretty crazy advanced things with their subs many decades ago and I'd be surprised if all that progress was just lost instead of improved.

[@ddandymann]

@@benbaselet2026 That was the Soviet Union. As the current war in Ukraine shows the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are two very different things.

[@benbaselet2026]

@@ddandymann Ideologically they seem to be exactly the same, but technologically not (although they are trying to bring bad the bad old days for their civilians).

[@Blodhelm]

@@benbaselet2026 We need to reevaluate everything we thought about Russian military technology. Half of it appears to be science fiction while the other half is half-assed.

[@winstonsyme7672]

The tank response to drones and guided AT munitions is the APS and computer controlled AA MG (or even a fuse detonated frag from the 125mm). Armata having even a small radar combined with automatic fire control systems makes countering drones far more feasible. The Armata isn't so much about having tanks on the ground now but having a chassis that has the capability to house 50 years of upgrades capable of adapting to threats that 1980s chassis can't because they lack the automation to react to current and future threats fast and accurately enough.

[@Taskandpurpose]

This is a great summary of the facts . Even if they don’t go into full rate production with the Armata for 10 years from now it’ll still be future proofed for upgrades. Unless drones force tank warfare to go to much smaller cheaper automated mini tanks ….

[@HanSolo__]

@@Taskandpurpose 152mm will never be used in T14 Armata. Well, as long as we live. It was tested and it did well on purpose build strengthened prototype but failed twice when tossed on the regular T14. Redesigning would be too expensive. There was no "T14 made with 152mm gun in mind as a future upgrade". It was designed the way, in the future, it would be possible to purpose design the turret. There was the prototype CAPABLE of shooting reliably 152mm but it was absurdly expensive. T14 was the lighter brother of it. The 125mm is a decent gun, but 1000mm RHA penetration at 1500m claimed is beyond what this can do. I don't know if it's 850mm 900mm. I know it is impossible to stretch the T-90S gun's already immensely stretched capabilities. The initial tests of this canon were blowing the gun breach. To these capabilities, Russian propaganda added their own little something-something. On top of all this + 20 - 25% of the muzzle energy, and from this number, the penetration was calculated. Which, of course, does not transfer with a 1 to 1 ratio. In 2015 I said on all Russian and worldwide forums: "It's 100% not ready!" - what else can I say? I was talking about was the X layout engine. It had more problems one could count. The powerpack is placed in such a way, it can not be placed any other way. I mean with this design. Yet, the design can not be changed because it makes it impossible to obtain this compact and lightweight setup. It has to be only this. The APS hard-kill type was not yet ready. It takes more money and time to test and make the settings right it could work reliably than designing and building the whole system. The *VERY* long-range shooting with this AI-supported "rough" aiming system. Yeah, this was in its infancy in 2015. The issue in the official announcement at the parade was not a handbrake. The transmission was jammed. Making T14 canon work on T-90S was a flat-out lie.

[@VeXu666]

You cant counter Drones with that MG unless it has a guiding infrared radar, which it surely doesn't have unless they didn't give a shit about the visibility of the tank on the field...

[@winstonsyme7672]

@@VeXu666 The MG is controlled by a computer connected to the afghanit radar which is already on and IR/Optical sensors and aimed and fired by the computer automatically. It doesn't need human aiming or reaction times, it has an AI. Just designation of a pre-tracked target and a request for permission to fire to avoid the AI shooting friendlies. Sufficient for a quad copter or catapult launched drone.

[@marinodezelak1180]

@@HanSolo__ why do you think the transmission was jammed?

[@commandplay]

The T14's engine is also supposedly a modified German SGP Sla 16. A WW2 experimental engine that was tested in a Jagdtiger B.

[@viswajitbala7924]

source: trust me bro

[@Ravengagepvl]

​@@viswajitbala7924 You don't need a source, the engines of both tanks are public knowledge. Look them up for yourself if you're curious, you'll see the similarities. Obviously the Russians thought they could make their design more reliable. And then an Armata broke down on red square during a parade lol. That was years ago... still no Armata in active service.

[@mofleh177]

The SGP Sla 16 was supposed to replace the Maybach HL230 V-12 used in Tiger I & II but never went to production as the war ended before it finished its testing. During the testing it was installed in a Jagdtiger and it showed a promising results, there was initially a problem with heating as the engine was air cooled but was sorted out with adjustment to the cooling fan. I don't know where you got the idea it was "notorious for breaking down" from!

[@commandplay]

@Mofleh Alrofidah sorry that was my mistake. You are right, the speculation was that of the engine installed in a jagdtiger and not a porsche tiger. I have changed my comment to more accurately portray it.

[@commandplay]

@Viswajit Bala there are articles, it is not officially confirmed that is why I said "supposedly"

[@laststand6420]

Sounds too innovative to me. One new system is usually buggy, ten of them together is usually unusable.

[@KekusMagnus]

It's really not, its a combination of systems which have been proven on newer western and Russian tanks. The overall design is foreward-thinking but the technology isn't anything special. It's a great design, but it seems they don't have the money to build it in relevant numbers yet. This is ironic because they lost far more money's worth of equipment in Ukraine than they saved by not upgrading their vehicles.

[@tenorlord]

That was the Edsel's problem: too many innovations on a single vehicle. You could even make a case for that being the main problem with the F-111 too.

[@jebise1126]

it does have lots of electronic but such designs were envisioned 40 even 50 years ago just never fully designed.

[@10thmtn86]

30+ years ago I bought a book by Brig Simpkin of the British Army. He advocated something very similar to this for future tanks: engine in front for added crew protection; crew capsule in the hull; and the mission pod in the rear. The pod could be a remote turret for a tank, or a troop transport compartment for a heavy IFV, or an artillery piece for a SPG, etc. The Merkava and Armata come close to what he was advocating. Pros and cons to everything...if the tech get damaged or fails then having the crew in the hull means no manual backup to keep the tank in the fight, and that is bad. Only three crew means no backup if someone is hurt or ill or called away for other duties. Some of you have to remember that tanks fight as part of a team with infantry, artillery, engineers, air, etc. ATGMs are great but you can't launch them if you're getting artillery airburst all over your position. Tanks in one form or another will always exist...a protected vehicle that can shoot, move and communicate.

[@jebise1126]

engine wont provide all that good protection and well... engine goes off tank is immobile and cant retreat. also it will glow like christmas tree on infra red. so not good idea.

[@zayden4309]

@@jebise1126 You are right. With the development of advanced composite armor, the advantage of putting the engine in the front is completely negligible. Israelis stick with frontal engine because their tank industry & tank crews are accustomed to such design. Change back to normal tank design that everyone else uses will cost a lot of time and money to change their doctrine, training, tactics and hull manufacturing etc.

[@jamesvanderpoel2135]

Climb to glory! Tipple Deuce vet here

[@Cavemanner]

This is what I'm always saying. You can't fire that MANPAD or RPG if you're under suppressive MG fire and sniper cover from infantry. Tanks don't operate in a vacuum despite what video games would lead everyone to believe. Battlefield has about the best tank combat in that regard. Being the ground support for a tank in BF4 is my favorite role in any game.

[@10thmtn86]

@@jebise1126 The powertrain does, in fact, provide protection to the crew if it is in front. Any large metal objects you can put between the soft squishy crew and projectiles trying to kill them is a good thing. Many IFVs and the Merkava and the S tank have their engines in front. The idea is to protect the crew, who take months or even years to train properly. You can always fix or produce another tank relatively quickly. As far as IR signature goes, as soon as you fire the main gun, you are no longer worried about the IR signature of your engine, which is behind armor anyway. Your engine exhaust can be mixed with fresh air to reduce its heat signature as well.

[@GeorgeGeorgeOnly]

Having a great design concept is one thing. Having an intergrated production or manufacturing platform as part of the whole project shouldn't be another thing.

[@WinterXR7]

Manufacturing it isn't a problem they have the factory lines. Its more of the deteriorating oil prices. Without high gas and oil prices Russia cant progress. like in the 1970s oil and gas were high and Russia had a economic boom blasting into 2nd strongest economy. in 2008 and 2014 Gas and Oil were high and they took land and started new projects such as the T-14.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Start with purpose. What's it for? Then design, proof of concept, funding, building the factory, prototype, initial testing, low rate initial production, quality control, spare parts, full production, delivery, training, and a battle philosophy. Then when there's a war you need transport, logistics, fuel, ammo, a maintenance schedule, deployed spare parts, repair facilities, etc. Skip any one of these steps, and you're asking for catastrophe. War is ridiculously expensive, but especially when you use high tech weapons platforms. Russia should use rocks and spears.

[@nvelsen1975]

@@WinterXR7 I hope you believe that garbage at least; it would be sad if nobody did. By 1971 Russian-occupied states were doing barter deals because their economy had died and they could only seize goods at gunpoint and barter them with countries that had an actual economy. It's worth it to study how the socialist / Russian economy worked. People who enjoy absurd humour will have a blast. Cube-shaped 'nails' for carpentry because the quotum is in kilograms. 5 hour waiting queues to get basic goods. Stealing lightbulbs from your factory because consumers can't buy any, since there are so few....

[@joelwillems4081]

Then having field tactics to actually make them effective is the 21st level that Russia will probably never achieve.

[@TsarOfRuss]

Here is T-14 training with mobilised troops in Kazan last month kzbin.infok68HVxZ2API

[@Justone372]

Awesome looking tank, but I’m certain it’s likely overstated in capacity.

[@Thisandthat8908]

dictators, companies and armies lying? impossible!

[@arthas640]

I always find it funny that people take Russian specs literally rather than taking them with a grain of salt. After the cold war we found out almost everything they had was worse then they claimed and often even worse then the Americans thought. Russia has always had an issue with overstate their equipments performance and they tend to make a few, hand made custom prototypes that perform far better than their general production models which in turn are often worse than their export models since they go all out on the prototypes but can't afford quality production models. We see the same happening in Ukraine where almost all their equipment is far worse than anyone thought and they don't seem to have any of their claimed cutting edge weaponry and what little they do have performs terribly

[@stevenrodriguez763]

@@arthas640 like that super fighter jet that everyone was afraid of in the west. Turns out it was only really usable as parade eye candy.

[@arthas640]

@@stevenrodriguez763 Russia has had a problem with that since their imperial days. They often lack the industrial capability and economy to produce competitive high tech equipment so they tend to get to the prototype and testing stage but simply cant afford to put the new stuff into production so they end up stopping after they have limited numbers of test models that they break out for parades, tests/shows, propaganda, etc. Even when it does enter production based off what I've read they often produce high quality test models and prototypes but when they enter production they seriously under perform, typically because they have to seriously cut corners due to funding problems and because production models have parts and materials that perform worse than they should due to shoddy quality. This is especially true if they're an export model which the Russians always produce at a lower quality then domestic models. It's a big reason why countries tend to go for American or European models first and only go with Russian if the west wont sell to them or if they cant afford it.

[@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here]

@@arthas640 horrendously overgeneralized statement. Nothing about the perception of Russian tech has changed before or after the 2022 invasion of ukraine. You could make a somewhat more reasonable argument if you meant the russian military as a fighting force in general, but there is nothing wrong with Russian tech. In fact a lot of it has proven to be very very good in this conflict.

[@Chiller01]

It looks like an interesting super modern vehicle. It’s just that Russian armoured doctrine from WW2 through the Cold War involved overwhelming the enemy or potential enemy with huge numbers of simply designed vehicles. The Armata is 180 degrees from that doctrine. It also comes at a time when the sophistication and number of hand held anti armour weapons are making the viability of the MBT concept open to question.

[@thelonelypilot]

So your saying mechs are possible?

[@ls200076]

@@thelonelypilot Mechs that can operate in infantry roles sure, but mechs bigger than that? No. The Handheld AT's are also a threat for mechs. Actually especially for mechs, a mech is way too vulnerable for that. Too many moving parts and weak points.

[@ghostttriddder]

@@ls200076 especially the joints

[@phunkracy]

What hand held anti armour weapon is capable of defeating modern top of the line MBTs frontally? Especially MBTs with latest active protection? If anything, it seems that hand held anti-armour weapons will go the way of the dodo.

[@lamalien2276]

@@phunkracy Oh, I agree. ATGMs are good, the missile rules the roost right now and is only getting better, but that doesn't mean tanks are finished.

[@GhostyToasty27]

Honestly, if you want to beat your opponent's tanks, buy more Javelins or NLAWs. Cheaper, more portable, and will cost your opponent a shit-load of money. The Ukrainian strategy LOL.

[@rannyczech]

Yeah.. with weapons like javelin, tanks are nothing more than portable crematorium or a very expensive cascet

[@override367]

Honestly with the prevalence of drones, main battle tanks might actually be obsolete

[@jamesricker3997]

That's why there was an anti-missile system on the T-14 Unfortunately for the Russians the system has issues Unfortunately for Russian Infantry anti-missile system is like a giant shotgun

[@nkl7345]

Harder to go on the offensive with Javelins or NLAWs but that's the point anyways

[@dacreamofthecrop]

@@nkl7345 good, will make invasion obsolete.

[@toddabbott781]

The T-14 is lightly armored on the turret. A simple 50 cal with armor piecing round would likely be able to rip through it easy. An RPG would shred it. The tank has great armor on the front and the front half of the sides to protect the crew, but that is it. The rest is VERY light. Just look at the monster engine and the size of the tank, large gun, and more admonition... it has to cut armor. They put a cage to protect the engine. Any Tow missile will rip through that. Now it has its active defense, but it only face a front 60 degree arc. I question if it will work against bombs or missiles coming in at a steep angle. That is even if the system really works. They still put the dazzler on the tank even though that has been defeated long ago. I also seriously doubt that defense system could touch a tank round and definitely not a depleted uranium dart. It sounds like the tank is really no harder to take out, but that the crew has a far better chance of surviving. I also question their optics and targeting as well as their training. As for the delays there were several quality issues, especially with the engine and massive cost overruns. Russia after cancelling their orders repeatedly it seems might have ordered 100 of them. With the current war though their economy is not doing so well so I doubt they will even get any.

[@vetrakr]

So a simple cage over the motor? I guess it can easily be disabled by dropping a flaming bottle of vodka on it. Unless all the wiring is hardened or if the motor bay has an automatic fire extinguishing system it'll be toast in less than a minute.

[@repletereplete8002]

I wouldn't be surprised if the ERA is only stuffed with papers saying: IOU ERA! Those mega yachts ain't cheap;]

[@toddabbott781]

@@vetrakr The cage only works really against older warheads like in a standard RPG. Most anti tank weapons like the TOW and Javelin now have dual warheads to counter cages and reactive armor. And if you are looking at the footage coming out of Ukraine, those cages are not working. They even started putting the cages on top to no avail.

[@barleysixseventwo6665]

This is probably the future of real tank development: Thinly armored turrets (albeit they should at least resist autocannon fire!) Active defense systems (Preferably ones that actually work), and a small, very thickly armored crew compartment positioned in the front where it can best counter the weight of the engine (and ideally placed to block most incoming fire from hitting the ammo rack). All that said...I think we'll be waiting a while before we see such tank designs becoming the standard. Completely replacing a nation's armor corps is just too expensive! Especially with all the new tech you gotta stuff in them.

[@cageordie]

NLAW uses an EFP, so you need something which will stop a 2km/s slug coming straight down on the turret.

[@WildBillCox13]

Opposite of the unmanned turret design was the MBT70 project (prototypes, one of which I saw at APG), back when I had hair on my head, instead of my ears and nose. These placed the entire crew in the turret. It was disorienting in the extreme for the driver, is what I remember hearing.

[@martinnermut2582]

MBT70 has all men in turret, including driver. Driver was solo in capsule, rotating counter to turrret, so he was all time seeing ahead, but the capsule was excentric, so he was oscilating left right back.....

[@thomasconnors4338]

My new tank is nuclear powered with unlimited fuel range, is invisible to the human eye, weighs less than most IFVs, the turret is not only detatchable but in fact can be launched into low earth orbit and rain death from above upon the entire earth. It also has a big robot arm that will rip off the T-14's main cannon and spear it right through the crew hatch. I expect to have it produced right about the same time that the Russian army gets its shit together and becomes a threat to professional western militaries.

[@oscaranderson5719]

lmao 😂

[@michaelgarrow3239]

Apparently you aren’t paying attention to current events.

[@cerberusrex5275]

So you already have it then?

[@jon3854]

@@michaelgarrow3239 how so? I see a bunch of civilians fighting off the worlds second largest military for over a week lmao, how embarrassing.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@michaelgarrow3239 Currently I see the Russians taking more casualties in two weeks than the last 2 American wars combined, which lasted for 13 and 20 years.

[@CarlGGHamilton]

The Abrams does not have 50 times zoom, it has 50 times digital zoom, increasing those pixels does not give you a better picture. Fairly confident any computerized fire control system can zoom in on pixels not just the abrams.

[@TehIdiotOne]

Yeah digital zoom is nothing special. And as you say, you can't create detail out of something that isn't there. The real world isn't CSI where you can just infinitely enhance and magically get details you wouldn't otherwise get.

[@cykeok3525]

@@TehIdiotOne Enhance four pixels into an image sharp enough to figure out what brand of watch the perp was wearing XD

[@yeetyskeet5548]

No bro this ain't ur average software it's alot better and it ain't entitled digital if it was then you wouldn't have a camera

[@CarlGGHamilton]

@@yeetyskeet5548 That's not how optics work.

[@cptclonks7279]

@@yeetyskeet5548 That's not how optics work.

[@psychshift]

I've always followed the principle for every automatic system you need a manual backup in case it fails or to supplement it.

[@quantuman100]

well, that sounds nice and all, but is outdated by now

[@Wallyworld30]

@@quantuman100 ??? That's not outdated at all. If the automated loader/turret fail this tank is just a roaming trouble. To much automation without manual backup is a death trap. Especially with how shit Russian equipment is proving to be in Ukraine.

[@quantuman100]

@@Wallyworld30 yes, let's look at the Russian stuff in Ukraine, most of it is the old "manual backup" equipment, not really anything more modern than the 2000s to be seen, so much for the manual backup being usefull

[@rexnifty8678]

@@quantuman100 you know that the tanks being used in Ukraine all have autoloaders, they started using them in the T-64, it isn’t a brand new concept

[@quantuman100]

@@rexnifty8678 yes, but these auto loaders could still be manually operated from inside the turret, hence why they have a reputation for taking off the loaders arms

[@rickluttrell5529]

You forgot to mention it’s the most advanced stealth tank ever created, which explains why no one can find one.

[@piotrd.4850]

Armata deserves recognition for ATTEMPT at decisive break from pattern that plagued Russian tanks since T-64. However, it had fallen flat at the same place as every other promising design: ENGINE. 1500 hp, COMPACT reliable tank engine is still beyond russian capabilities. Even unremarkable as Leo2 original engine, much less something akin to French Leclerc' Hyperbar. In any case, thoroughly updated advanced T-72BM derivatives are available in obscene numbers, more than Russia can afford to man and maintain, and are capable enough for most needs. Well maintained, with modern digital communication, new ammo and autoloader and updated optics these are still formidable vehicles. ~ 9:12 it isn't first - check Jordanian Falcon turret with 120mm RUAG CTG. I think Armata will be Ka-50 of tanks - innovative and ready for mass production, even usable in a field, but will remain niche vehicle with more traditional ones being prevalent for decades to come.

[@danepatterson8107]

All tanks are drone bait in today's combats against equal combatants. Yeah, I agree, the Armata has some interesting concepts, though. And it should revitalize the debate about where tanks fit in today's ground war. But today, drones rule the mechanized battlefield more than any other weapon platform. And if we know one thing about the Russians: They are WAY better at electronic warfare than any western nation.

[@vdotme]

@@danepatterson8107 The drone bait theory is unproven. It's just been a popular assumption since Nogornokarabakh.

[@phunkracy]

First, the engine ALREADY present on T-14 is 1500 hp. The goal is 2000 hp at the same size and greater efficency. So your entire argument alreadygoes out of the window. Also, Jordanian Falcon turret is in no way comparable to Armata turret. For one, it is not unmanned - it still has crew compartment, isn't fully digital, etc etc.

[@TheZombinator91]

The Falcon turret was not remotely controlled, the design was the same as that used by Striker MGS, where the crew is housed in the turret basket.

[@lamalien2276]

The engines on tanks aren't much different than the engines in WW2 fighter, just lighter weight and easier to maintain. The Russians shouldn't have trouble developing one.

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

At one timeI was a driver-mechanic on a 2S3 self-propelled gun, "Carnation", served in East Germany. At the same time, he studied driving the main Soviet tanks of the 80s T64 and T72. The 2S3 self-propelled guns had such a terrible manual gearbox that to switch from second to third gear, you had to get off the seat and help yourself with your shoulder, and it was almost a new self-propelled gun. In T14, the gearbox is automatic, has 8 forward speeds and 8 reverse speeds, for Russian technology this is a big breakthrough. Instead of control levers - a joystick, a gunner and a commander sitting next to the mechvod, who can communicate verbally and help each other - are worth a lot.

[@toastplayz_9726]

1st russian tank with reverse gear?

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

@@toastplayz_9726 Child, play with toys and don't think about reverse gear, it's too early for you.

[@toastplayz_9726]

@@vladimirnikolskiy I was making a joke about how russian/soviet tanks don't have a reverse gear, it's a joke in the war thunder community

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

@@toastplayz_9726 Haven't played in a while, didn't get your joke. All the best!

[@prjndigo]

The B29 had four unmanned remotely operated turrets. The Rheinmetal 120mm has been able to finish the targeting solution since the 1970's when it was a 105mm. This technology was introduced in the AH56 Cheyenne based off the technology _from_ the B29's radar remote targeting stations.

[@selfdo]

The B-29 also had a Sperry analog computer used to direct fire, coupled to the aircraft's on-board radar. Analysis of combat footage over Europe from B-17s, B-24s, and B-25s, which were designed for much slower top speeds (about 260 mph), against early 1940s-vintage fighter aircraft (some could very shortly get over 400 mph, but doing so severely hampered their "loiter" time) indicated that waist, top, and belly gunners seldom, if ever, hit any enemy aircraft, due to the vagaries of the approach vectors and relative velocities involved. The rear gunner had the best chance of hitting an approaching fighter at all; followed by forward gunners (in the B-17G onwards) taking on a "head-on" attack. Typically only these two positions contributed any meaningful defense to the aircraft, the others were useful mainly for complementary cover to the other planes in formation. The B-29 intended to solve these issues by having the analog computer devise a shooting solution when the aircraft's radar picked up enemy targets; it could direct those remote-control turrets quicker and with better accuracy than a human gunner was capable of. Since that plane wasn't used in any numbers over Europe, and by the time it really got into action in significant enough numbers over Japan in early 1945, the Japanese fighter defense was virtually nonexistent, due to lack of, mainly, fuel and trained pilots. Most of what aircraft they did have were obsolete by 1945 standards and what few did sortie were easily picked off by American CAP, either P-38 Lightnings or P-51 Mustangs. In fact, the CO of the XX Air Force, Curtis "Bombs Away" Le May, realizing that the B-29 gunners were effectively out of a job, had all but the tail guns, ammo, and crew removed on some of them operating out of Tinian island, and sent them on low-level night raids against Japanese cities, dropping incendiaries with horrific effect. The air raid of greatest destruction was against Tokyo, with 328 of these B-29s, thus modified, and the destruction burned out almost 20 square miles of Japan's capital and killed an estimate 125K people...more died that night than in the first 24 hours after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined. However, the heydey of the B-29 would be short-lived. Not only was it slated for replacement by first the B-36 "Peacemaker" and later the B-52 "BUFF", it was, in spite of its size IAW WWII standards, designated a "medium" bomber when the Air Force came into being as a separate service. Over Korea, at first the B-29s helped to destroy the DPRK's ability to carry on the war, and fighter cover (F-51s, F-82 "Twin" Mustangs, and P-80 jets) dealt with the WWII-vintage MiG and Lavochkin piston-engined fighters flowed by the North Koreans. But in November, 1950, the first MiG-15 jet fighters made their appearance, and could virtually ignore the USAF fighter cover and wreaked havoc on the B-29s in daylight. These jets were, of course, flown by Soviet V-VS pilots, under command of WWII Soviet Ace Ivan Kozehdub, who also, against orders, flew a few missions himself and claimed to have shot down two USAF P-80s and an F-86! It got so bad that after a particular debacle, known in USAF annals as "Black Tuesday", where, on a daylight raid on October 30, 1951, six of nine B-29s of a particular raid against an airfield at Namsi, Korea, were lost. The USAF would never send B-29s on a daylight raid again.

[@markstott6689]

It's probably another paper tiger like the SU-75 Checkmate. Unless they can sell shed loads around the world they cannot afford to build them for themselves. Add to that the potential issue that not all systems are mature enough for active service and it leaves you with a nice idea for a tank and a few built to look good for the May Day parade on Red 🟥 Square.

[@whipthemachine]

You mean the su 57 femboy?

[@ms3862]

@@whipthemachine no the su-75 femboi

[@whipthemachine]

@@ms3862 oh my mistake lol

[@cookiecola5852]

More Russian tanks have taken off then modern Russian planes😢

[@SeanP7195]

Exactly. And several of Russias overseas investors pulled out on both the T-14 and T-90 as they complained it wasn’t what they were promised. India got so sick of the tanks they were getting they started their own tank company.

[@palisadenhonko4962]

01:08 Imagine looking out of your window, just to see a guy with a helmet and a M4 talking to camera in his hand in the other house. 🤣

[@Pallium_Industries]

@my neighbors

[@cykeok3525]

Cappy's neighbors are probably used to it by now...

[@mickd8490]

A friend of the family who went to Russia for his company was furnishing his flat and asked a colleague (who was from Russia) what was a good washing machine to buy and duly said a type. The machine boke down almost immediately after purchase and the colleague said "Oh yes they all do, but that washing machine is easier to work on".

[@reliablethreat23]

I'll take one of our M1's with an experienced crew above any other tank in the world.

[@jonathanpersson1205]

Russia is now sending all their new T14 Armata tanks back to their factories to be modified. They are going to incorporate some design changes that reflect lessons learned in the Special Military Operation. The tanks gear box needs replacing so that they have one super low forward gear and five reverse gears. The tanks bustle also needs to be enlarged in order to be able to carry a typical sized washing machine

[@RichardBaran]

Ahahahah

[@minimumlikelihood6552]

You forgot the auto cigaret loader.

[@Prayukth]

Small correction: It becomes unmanned after Ukrainian troops fire in its general direction...so much for Russian hardware..you have a better chance of winning with a completely biodegradable wood-based lego tank than any Russian stuff...

[@pax6833]

Russia won't even risk its T14s in Ukraine lol

[@agardensnake8960]

Definitely not after the Moskva

[@DHAGSFU]

There were no t-14 in ukraine, the tanks were from older generations.

[@PhilippSeven]

it would be funny if Ukraine did not lose in the end

[@akon360]

I don’t think any tank can counter the javeline. To Russia’s credit

[@MostlyPennyCat]

"I'm not biased to one tank or another, they're all equally terrifying to me and my small arms fire"

[@carlholm7867]

The concept of a tank with an unmanned turret and autoloader was actually pioneered by the swedes in the 50's. Granted the Strv 101 S didn't have a turret at all, but that's not important...

[@TheArcticFoxxo]

the concept of a tank that can be controller by one person

[@cerberusrex5275]

As far as I know the first tank with an unmanned turret was that polish prototype - PL-01, it wasn't the armata. I don't see how the concept of the unmanned turret can be applied to a turretless vehicle, so I don't think the swedish example counts.

[@TheArcticFoxxo]

@@cerberusrex5275 M1128, HSTV, any technical casemate, and so on

[@MrZcar350]

As for actual unmanned tank turrets, there was the M1 TTB back in the 80s. It was a test bed variant of the Abrams, not even a prototype, though. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWfElJePrLGAl6s

[@leonarddecant8566]

Sounds like an awesome tank! But where is it? Something is certainly wrong here. It’s no good if you can’t make it. I suspect there are a lot of great systems but very few of them consistently work as planned making it very unreliable. Let’s hope they don’t figure it out soon.

[@33Verst]

Finally a comment that is neutral, no red or blue team just talking about a tank.

[@melgross]

The problems with auto loaders are reliability, for one. They’re much more complex than manual loaders. When they jam, as all guns do at times, there’s no real way to unjam it. Two is that there are several types of ammunition. Manual loaders are able to resort the ammo to better reflect the conditions they’re going into. Auto loaders can’t do that, they have to turn the carousel until the needed rounds are found. That’s very slow. If power is out, the gun can’t be used. And of course, many Russian weapons don’t work as advertised. We’ve never seen it in actual battle. Are the Russians as confident about this tank as they claim? Considering how easily newer updated versions of the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are knocked out, despite having active armor which supposedly prevents that, you have to wonder how well these new weapons and armor also work. Where are the T-14s in Ukrainian? Surely they must have a few that are combat ready.

[@jonomurphy1117]

Iff your "Active Armour" is what you call ERA then yes it has shown its ineffectiveness against modern tandem charge ATGMs and top attack munitions, no modern MBT without modern hard kill active protection systems is capable of stopping modern tandem charge ATGM munitions, not russian tanks not Chinese tanks and not NATO tanks. T14 has hard kill active protection system "afghanit" that is capable of stopping and degrading APFSDS along with ATGM's including top attack munitions, iff based in some truth this make the APS systems of T14 already on par or slightly ahead with the "Trophy" hard-kill APS used on Abrams and "Iron Fist" used on Challenger 2. The "Malachit" ERA is probably the best in the world. The other problem with manual loaders is the fact that you have to train and pay them and their training and proficiency will vary from person to person, a major problem for a nation that is perpetually bankrupt. also there is no evidence of T90-M1 has been destroyed which by the way is the only one of your above listed T72 and T80 that has received upgrades past Kontakt-5 and Relikt ERA on top of a 70s and 80s vehicle specifically T-72B3, T80BVM and T90 the latter of which has received virtually no upgrades.

[@melgross]

@@jonomurphy1117 we don’t actually know what on the T 14 works, as it hasn’t been tried on the battlefield. It’s one thing to market it as working, and then show some carefully controlled “tests” showing it working, but that means nothing. How many of even those controlled “tests” failed before the ones they “allow” out to the public succeeded? We don’t know. But Russian hardware is not considered to be reliable for a number of reasons, design, manufacture, corruption, etc. Their missiles are failing at up to a 60% level, when military experts say 20% is normal. So I find it hard to believe much of what the Russians claim, as they can’t even seem to mass produce these things. Remember, they should have had over 2,000 in the field several years ago. So, realistically, even in the unlikely scenario where these do work as claimed, they aren’t using the few they have, and no matter what they claim about production, there no reason to believe there will ever be enough for a real battle. They should at least have sent a couple dozen in to test them under real field conditions. This was a great opportunity where the force against them has only older models. Why haven’t they? Maybe they know they won’t perform up to expectations, and that would be a major prestige blow. To think that their latest super tank could be destroyed by a $43,000 hand held missile would be too much to bear. Their equipment customers such as India might become very nervous about buying them in the future, particularly seeing as how easy the current models India has now are destroyed in Ukraine. I think there’s the possibility that they’re hiding something. Don’t be surprised.

[@jonomurphy1117]

@@melgross while I would agree with the economic factors it is MY OPINION that the T14 is exceptionally capable against modern munitions iff employed effectively and let me remind you that the United States last attempt at a replacement for Abrams went belly up in the early 2000s. Javelin struggles against active protect systems in the hard kill capacity however no Russian tanks in Ukraine feature such system. Just because it can knock out a vehicle that is 90 percent from the 80s doesn't mean it's all ending or god awful it is what it is.

[@melgross]

@@jonomurphy1117 the problem is that you don’t know,how effective the T-14 is. Don’t say you do. None of us do. I just read an interesting article about why it’s not in the Ukraine war. The reasons were several, but mentioned as important was that the Russians are trying to line up buyers of the system before trying to manufacture a large number, because some have gotten out of hand, apparently doubling what they should have been( something we see all the time with military hardware). But they’re afraid that what’s happened to their latest attack helicopter there might happen to the T-14. That copter was knocked down in at least two incidents. Reportedly, the Chinese, the possible customer for them as their own is seen as a failure, is asking for information on why and how they were shot down. It’s believed that China may decide to not buy them. That’s billions of dollars in sales possibly lost. Russia can’t afford that. So the thinking goes that instead of putting some of these tanks into action against the weaker opponent in Ukraine, which would have made sense, as a test of their effectiveness, they’re keeping them out, as it would look bad if even one or two got destroyed by a missile. And these missiles can get past these active defenses, as they’ve been modified to do so with double charges, etc. don’t be so smug about these ranks. They’re not even close to being battle tested. You should be questioning why some are not there now.

[@jonomurphy1117]

@@melgross Exactly then why are you assuming it's a failure as a program and all of it's key design features are worthless iff both you and I know sweet fuck all about the real performance of the vehicle?

[@adamismail3246]

Great presentation, Chris. Just a thought. Maybe what the Armata's is going through (as the intended next step in concept and design) is exactly what the T64 went through? Armata is what the Russian military wants to have BUT may not necessarily THE only way to achieve that step. The T64 was produced in rather small numbers (compared to other tank series), was never exported (prior to the collapse of the USSR) and became a working test platform for the development of next generation of tanks like the T80.

[@vdotme]

Yes possible, but no not the same. T64 was meant to be developed alongside the T-80. One for tech excellence, the other for ease of production ----> mass production. T14 was supposed to be a hybrid, both tech excellence & mass production.

[@comradekirov7788]

@@vdotme not T-80, T-72

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

i would consider 13k units delivered a pretty big production run. that outproduced just about every western MBT series alone. AND it was the high price, high tech, low production tank. T72 clocks in at about 25k And T80 as the most expensive one at about 6000

[@tyrionas]

@Brendon O'Connell III okay okay, you can take your tinfoil hat off now

[@Taskandpurpose]

to be honest I was actually not very familiar with the T-64 ! I just started getting more into learning about main battle tanks, a natural curiosity out of my Infantry Fighting Vehicle fascination. But this peeked my interest I'm going to look into the T-64 and cover it fully in a future video.

[@aliszhinchaenz]

It's now the 8th of March. Russia has just invaded Ukraine. They sent in 190,000 troops with hundreds of tanks and other equipments. After a few days of fighting, photos and videos of russian tanks being towed by Ukrainian farmers as war trophies. It's now nearly two weeks into the fighting and they still haven't sent in these armatas.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Probably because they don’t want the embarrassment of the T-14s all being knocked out by Javelin missiles supplied by the US. And that’s assuming the T-14s will even work long enough to get there, and not get stuck in the mud and abandoned.

[@alqamenesh7433]

Why would they waste their newer costly tanks when conscripts on old ass T72s have already taken control of over one fifth of Ukraine in like 3 weeks taking losses which amount to like 1% of less of total Russian military?

[@MrChiangching]

@@alqamenesh7433 Russia is getting its ass kicked

[@aliszhinchaenz]

@@alqamenesh7433 I don't know what you're trying to prove but a few months ago, the whole world believed that russia is a super power country and is able to conquer any country in about a week. It turns out that almost all their generals are inexperienced in war. All they do is show off like the ones they're doing when tailing an enemy aircraft

[@noldo3837]

I think the only Armatas they show around are showing around are just mockups and inside is FIAT :D

[@MrMTGPsycho]

Lazerpig did a video with a LOT of damning information. The T-14 is not advanced, nor new, nor does it beat out any current main battle tanks of major NATO nations. That would be the LaClerc, the Panther, the Abrams, and the Challenger 3 upgrade pack. None of the hard or soft kill systems seem to work and the Tank version of Skunk Works made a more affective version of the thermal dissipating armor. Then, just to salt the wound, General Dynamic did what General Dynamic do and proposed the Abrams X. Using existing manufacturing, a hybrid diesel/electric engine, and with that thermal dissipating armor. They have a working prototype that drive and a turret that shoots. The thing can be manned or unmanned with a drone like drive system, a big ol' grenade launcher (with smart grenades), and can turn off the diesel entirely. At night, this tank is the scariest they they'll never hear coming.

[@freddiejohames8332]

The problem with an autoloader is that once it breaks it will be a pain to repair and impossible if it gets hit

[@aleide2980]

Well, if think this applies to a human loader too. A pain to repair.

[@freddiejohames8332]

@@aleide2980 yes but humans are easier to replace quickly.

[@tonybrowneyed8277]

Hence, a fully automated tank, being expandable by construction, does not need to be repaired. A manned one does, otherwise the crew is screwed.

[@freddiejohames8332]

@@tonybrowneyed8277 yes and that is something that the t14 is not. That sort of tank could only be done with very strong supply lines and mechanics and that is something that the Russian army serverley lacks.

[@user-sm5sj6mg2t]

I mean, Russians are now in an all-out war and we haven't seen a single one of these bois on the battlefield, even in their most elite 1st Guard Tank Army.

[@ethanguest3438]

As lazerpig pointed out it might be becuase whilst yes, on paper it is an excellent vehicle, they can probably barely afford to run them

[@bartdekkers8227]

true, russia seems to do this with its B team. Mainly because of the chance NATO wants to join the fight, they want to keep their best ready for that and not for ukranian army.

[@user-sm5sj6mg2t]

@@bartdekkers8227 Except the 1st Guards Tank Army ain't no B team, it's the elite of Russia's tank force. If anyone had fully operational T-14s, it would likely be them.

[@ppo2424]

@@user-sm5sj6mg2t They dont need them, why waste them

[@ddandymann]

@@user-sm5sj6mg2t There are no fully operational T-14's, the vehicle still hasn't entered serial production and all those that do exist are prototypes that are only good for testing and propaganda footage. Also even if they were operational I doubt Putin would risk them given how the war is going. If the Ukrainian farmers can nab one with their tractors they'll send it to the Americans who will be able to analyse every flaw and weak point on the tank.

[@alejandrocasalegno1657]

"Russia is never so strong or so weak as seems" Von Clausewitz

[@johntruman4397]

Old story new world Von Clausewitz said that Russia would fall from within.

[@sebastiangorka200]

goddamn thats the first western assessment of us that i can cosign

[@alqamenesh7433]

Stands true to this day it seems.

[@gemmabutterworth1208]

The 0bject 195 had the worlds first unmanned turret but it was sort of an incomplete turret because its gun was only a prop.

[@americanspartan2420]

Tanks break all the time. Hell there was a time where every Abrams in my battalion was deadlined and couldn't drive faster than 10 mph

[@Alloy682]

Well shit lol

[@Mr_MikeB]

@domcom fermi Did they? Or all damage was done by bombs, rockets and artillery? At least I do not recall any serious tank battles during USA invasion in Iraq...

[@Mr_MikeB]

@domcom fermi And what is your rank? Btw - so you have got info about serious tank battles Iraq vs USA? Or your high military rank doesn't allow you to discuss that?

[@noplesnono9656]

@@Mr_MikeB Did nobody tell you about 73 Easting?

[@Mr_MikeB]

@@noplesnono9656 Tank battle at Kursk lasted for many weeks. Tank battle you mentioned - just couple days... Doubt you can call it great...

[@elvisfundin9257]

Don’t quote me on this but 50x on M1 is electronic and therefore not really a lot better than 12x on the Armata

[@Taskandpurpose]

you're saying its like a digitally enhanced zoom instead of anactual optical lens zoom? That might be the case I'll have to double check that

[@elvisfundin9257]

@@Taskandpurpose yeah in my memory it is but I’m not 100% sure

[@rollog1248]

You're right but this isn't the early 2000's using old nikon cameras. It is a new upgrade and most likely has some sort of upscaling.

[@Atourq]

Upscaling or any form of digital zoom is still a legitimate issue. Even with current technology, it isn’t up to par with analogue lenses in terms of picture quality. You also can have issues with minute details being obscured or blended into the overall picture. This may be an issue against a target that’s well camouflaged.

[@erickmontero6222]

@@Taskandpurpose yes the optical zoom is 13X and the Abrams can further electronically zoom 25X and 50X. However firing from that level of zoom gives a higher chance of error bc any tiny adjustment in aim will have a greater effect on trajectory

[@dennisandersson5552]

Given the Soviet Union's traditional approach of having two types of frontline tanks, an advanced and expensive version for elite units, as well a cheaper more massproduceable model for ramping up numbers, I think that we will see the T-14 Armata as the T-64 of today. Thus it will never replace the large numbers of T-72, T-80 and T-90 that are in service due to it's prohibitative cost. Russia has large numbers of tanks that can be "effective enough" after upgrades and Russia has a need to allocate military spending to other service branches, such as the Navy. The Soviet approach of having competing tank designs did make sense in that it could have competition between the nation's producers, albeit within a planned economy, something that pushed innovation. I think today's Russia will stick to that thought processe, thus the T-90 will not go away, it will probably be produced in tandem with the T-14 Armata while the already existing tank fleet will be upgraded for keeping up numbers out of economic and military necessity. However such an approach will also keep the individual cost for each T-14 Armata high unless Russia can find customers abroad..

[@Ypog_UA]

The issue is that Russia has been merging internal design bureaus since the 90s and so that competition is increasingly becoming irrelevant. In addition, one of the two main DBs of the USSR, Kharkov Morozov, was located in Ukraine and doesn't work with them anymore. Uralvagonzavod is basically Russia's only DB, and they get all the contacts.

[@Bingo_Bango_]

This one was/is supposed to be the inexpensive and mass-produced one, it just bloomed out of control in scope and budget, just like the designs it clung to. The question is: what is it worth? The year is 2023, and the US military is at the tail end of a lot of long investment and longer prices. ERCA is operational and several hundred are bought and deployed across Asia and bases in Europe and Africa. Every single M1299 covers 100km, and due to the Integrated Fires network (completed in late 2022) any battlefront engagement will ping the nearest one in this mesh of extremely long range artillery for fire support. Out of the box, they fire ten rounds a minute with extraordinary range at a velocity the T-14's active protection, intended mostly to answer the infantry fires threat, is already incapable of handling. A push by T-14s is not met by expensive M1s, but dozens of Ripsaw M5s, winner of the now concluded RCV-L program, which cost under a million each. These light robot combat vehicles are faster and lighter than the T-14, automated, and can be armed with a variety of mission packages including a 30 mm cannon. This cannon is used not to try to crack the T-14 (though it is precise enough that precision fire could shatter the T-14's treads) but instead to incapacitate its unmanned turret, targeting the hilariously vulnerable optics. One or two of the M5s may be destroyed by the main turret, rendering the MBT too "busy" to target heavier armor anyway, but within a minute the 155mm rocket-assisted shell that was fired by the optimal M1299 from the optimal angle within seconds of the T-14 being sighted will have arrived, and then the follow-up shot panned a meter ahead arrives too, just for good measure. At that point, the Russian military is down a few million dollars down on their investment and one elite MBT shorter of their tiny pool, all in exchange for a really nice set of stats on paper. If there are tens of thousands of T-14s, they become a dangerous modernization of the MBT concept, because they allow MBTs to operate "like they used to" and they can mass and push so artillery or drones don't have the *time* to pick them apart. If they're supposed to be strategic asset, then they are already outdated, because there is no such thing "safe heavy armor" with a range under 10km anymore, no matter what kind of protection you think you're slapping on it.

[@worldoftancraft]

I very like all those liberals' thoughts on «innovations in a planned economy».

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

You are right, now the modernization of the T90 tanks to the T90M version is in full swing. They change the turret of the tank, the engine, put a new passive protection. For example, 65 T90Ms were transferred to the troops last year, while only 20 T14 tanks arrived.

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

@@Bingo_Bango_ Well, you are a dreamer! Your Ripsaw M5 toys will be destroyed several kilometers away. Although even this may not be necessary, all more or less large military formations of Russia now have electronic warfare systems, and already this year, tank units began to be equipped with tank support vehicles, the Terminator BMPT.

[@tobiwan001]

UVZ has now stopped ALL production of any tank because they lack parts. Luckily, it is not the only tank factory in Russia. Oh wait. It is.

[@BosonCollider]

Combining an IFV chassis with a tank chassis is doable and could be a good idea if you really want maximum commonality, but not if the tank has a large cannon turret imho. You could do it with a turretless tank design like the Stridsvagn 103, plus a small remote turret at the top that is shared with the IFV platform

[@СашаКумылганов]

ACTUALLY there is an update on the Armata you missed, not long ago (a month or so) in the Russian side of the net several photos of post trial modification of t14 appeared, with even thicker armor on the front hull and reworked side armor panels. With news that T-14 finished it's state trials and the first batch of 20 serial version of t14 is slated to be delivered to the front lline troops by the end of 2021~early 2022

[@zachv1942]

Just in time to field in urkraine.

[@drakonos79]

@@zachv1942 yup. I'm afraid you're right. certain engagements will be the 'proving grounds' for technologies. Just like Georgia was where the Russians went back to the drawing table and decided to upgrade their army structure, and in particular their infantrymen. Now they are testing this out in Syria and Ukraine. They are taking notes. Maybe we should too.

[@1djbecker]

They actually announced that the first batch of 20 will not be made until 2022. This is the same 20 frequently believed to have already been delivered. My belief is that the Russians have concluded that they can't develop the technology claimed, and certainly can't afford the development. They also realize that it is a tank with a glass jaw -- a lightly armored turret that can be knocked out with 30mm is a mission kill, even if the crew can drive it back in retreat.

[@cykeok3525]

@@1djbecker Also possible that they have the technology claimed, but they can't develop the means to affordably mass produce the design. Even with if the technology works and the design is sound, if they can't build and field them, it's *still* just vapor. Also, is the front of the turret really not even resistant to 30mm? I'd expect even the "lightly" armored turret (by MBT standards) to be resistant at least to modern 75-105mm rounds, depending on angle of incidence.

[@ravenmoon5111]

It’s turning out to be like the SU-57. It doesn’t work and it’s too expensive for Russia’s third world economy to build. They are still stuck with their T-72 knockoffs and look at how those are getting cooked in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[@craigmcguire6573]

Pretty sure Russia is rethinking its Soviet era doctrine of saturating the battlefield with armor like they coming thru the Fulda Gap. The Russians havent lost this many tanks prob since WW2 thanks to Saint Javelin.

[@ravenmoon5111]

@@craigmcguire6573 Great point but they did lose a crap-ton of tanks in Chechnya as well. So people just don’t learn

[@adriansingh429]

Putin is being friendly in Ukraine, thats because russians and ukrainians are like brothers, if he wanted to he could destroy Ukraine

[@c.augustedupin8860]

the real reason why the T-72 tanked is being cooked is because russian soldiers lack of motivation and as for the third world economy .sure we are no world beater but we are far better than most of the eastern European contries despite they getting help from eastern European nations

[@ravenmoon5111]

@@c.augustedupin8860 The T-72 is a flawed design. They store the ammo under the turret so even a minor hit can cause a spontaneous cook off of the ammo. This is an endemic problem to the design and it carried through the T80 and T90. The Armata solves this issue but Russia lacks the funds to build it

[@christopherlamitie3506]

I’m sure that all 19 T-14s built would be excellent targets for Javelins and NLAWS.

[@lqr824]

We always hear that the fourth man is good for repair and maintenance etc. But, each tank has a big logistics chain and whatever is moving the fuel ammo and spare parts around can certainly carry extra manpower to the extent it's needed.

[@bertv.374]

A man less on that tank is a man less to pay, train and getting sick or hurt in battle. I don't know what the costs per year for a FTE tanker is, but say that tank lasts 30 years, it means 30 years of wages. Thinking the other way around you get more firepower with less manpower.

[@orlock20]

@@bertv.374 I just read that's it's about $750 a month so over the course of 10 years, that money could go into one anti tank missile.

[@jpevans01]

The maint issue is real. You’re often on your own or just with your Troop /platoon. Tanks are dispersed as much as possible so they don’t get smacked by arty. Plus fuel / ammo / spares / supply is very vulnerable so is done as quickly as possible. You’ll miss the extra man…

[@thomas316]

Your comment about logistics and support proved surprisingly prescient. 🙂

[@Stormcommando]

the logistics train is true but in case of comparison the US has one of the most robust long range logistics trains. From personal experience that 4th man makes a difference and with the rapid (by comparison to others) logistics train help to get equipment back to battle quicker.

[@Yevgeny_N]

The tank is still being tested. The latest versions of the T14 have changed the body armor and God knows what else. There is no point in rushing with deliveries, anyway, no one has and will not have anything similar in the near future.

[@swordsman1137]

Yeah, afaik first batch delivery of the serial production will start next year

[@mando_dablord2646]

Near future? That's debatable, but I think it'll be under 5 years before other nations start producing their own developments. The tank itself should still be considered on the prototype phase. It's not in full production and should only be considered as a test bed in it's current state. With the U.S and Germany/France especially currently developing their own next generation tanks that will outpace the T-14 in it's current state at the least. The U.S specifically is just going through the bureaucracy of deciding what design they want for their crews. So it'll be capable of putting out new vehicles within a year or two when that happens. Germany & France are still in the technology demonstration stage right now, but what they're testing completely blows away anything Russia currently has planned to mount on the T-14.

[@Yevgeny_N]

@@mando_dablord2646 "The U.S and Germany/France are currently developing their own next generation tanks that will outpace the T-14 in it's current state at the least." - Perhaps they will be superior, and maybe not. Only in Russia does the tank finish testing, and in the West they are only thinking about the project. It's not even on paper yet. "The U.S specifically is just going through the bureaucracy of deciding what design they want for their crews. So it'll be capable of putting out new vehicles within a year or two when that happens." - Read the history of Bradley's creation. "Germany & France are still in the technology demonstration stage right now, but what they're testing completely blows away anything Russia currently has planned to mount on the T-14." - Germany and France have been doing this for 5 years. Where is the tank?

[@mando_dablord2646]

@@Yevgeny_N You're under the assumption that it will go exactly as it has gone in the past. On the flipside of your view, the T-14 hasn't finished full testing either. It's set a very poor standard and is still unproven, with Russia needing to fudge it's numbers to make it look better. The U.S has 3 designs that they've past to tank crews to see what design they prefer. It's not like they're just doing a wait and see, they're fully prepared to begin the production phase when a decision is made. The Abrams is at the end of its lifetime, in terms of upgradability and in comparison with the T-14 which has met NATO standard. Germany and France also aren't rushing out their development either. They're on schedule and have been in the technology demonstration stage, which they're shifting to the development stage now, with full production expected in 2035. Even if it's still gonna take a while, I stand by my statement that the technology demonstrated does far outperform anything the T-14 has planned. Technology integration hasn't fully begun, which will happen in the last few stages and creates room for further improvements. So the U.S is the closest to making a next gen tank, which is also looking to make heavy use of drone technology. In comparison to Russia which has essentially just made an experimental tank that is currently above average in terms of NATO standard.

[@Yevgeny_N]

@@mando_dablord2646 "they're fully prepared to begin the production phase when a decision is made." - Your naivety knows no bounds. I stand by my opinion. There's no point arguing about it. Time will tell which of us is right. "above average in terms of NATO standard." - He is so much above average that the US suddenly decided that Abrams was outdated and urgently began developing a tank of the next generation. Before the appearance of the T-14, they said that Abrams was the best tank in the world. What happened? Is he no better? So much so that even its most recent upgrades are not satisfied and it needs to be replaced? Let's assume, hypothetically, that the US will build a prototype in a few years. How many years do you think it takes to test before being adopted? Do you think France and Germany have bad engineers, since they will only build the first tank in 2035? A tank is not an iron, it is a very difficult engineering task. India and Turkey are unable to create a good tank. How many countries do you think make tanks? If it were simple, Germany and France would not have united to create a tank. Moreover, this is not their first attempt. I can't wait to see what kind of tank Russia will present in 2035. You don't think that work has stopped in Russia. A new generation tank has already been created and while Western countries are developing their own, Russia is developing a tank of the next generation.

[@MrKinkysloth]

I’m a civilian and just like being fed historical and informational stuff… you’re a hell of a teacher Mr Cappy 🤙🏼

[@Cheese_Boi1986]

check out "the history guy" hes a teacher and is good

[@theOG_Russkiye]

Aah... won't the turret of the T-14 also go pop like those of T-90s and T-72s?

[@casbot71]

The *Olympic Games* should have a spin off like the Paralympics, but for military equipment. … some of the previous games's "survivors" could even compete in the next cycles Paralympic Games. _"And here we have the US mixed pairs airforce team consisting of a F-22 and a F-35 going up against the Russian team of a Su-57 and a Su-35, after their humbling of the Chinese Team and their much vaunted J-20"._

[@mrunaltondre6051]

There are games like this held in Russia

[@BrianS1981]

No point designing the "best tank in the world" when you can't build it. Modern Russia would have trouble building 100 T-34s never mind any of this. As we've seen in the Ukraine invasion, the Russian military is very badly equipped and with outdated and broken stuff to boot. Its army is the very definition of paper tiger.

[@dinos9607]

So said the armchair general. LOL! Meanwhile the British mercenaries (ex-servicemen who fought in Iraq and Afganistan) who went to fight in Ukraine declare that they were S H O C K E D by the amount of firepower and fighting tactics of the Russians. Well? It is one thing to fight against Iraqis already carpet-bombed from 20,000 feet and another to be on the other end, being bombed by the Russians. Napoleon talked badly of them, Hitler talked badly of them, now you talk badly of them, but the fact of the matter is that they always prevail. Start digesting the facts.

[@brandonlevy8680]

@@dinos9607 they always prevailed because they were being invaded ( By the nations/forces you mentioned). The environment, weather and logistics have always been against the attacker. Russia is now facing the same issues attacking, Ukraine as other armies in the past have had attacking, Russia. As to Russia always prevailing... Afghanistan... Japan and even further back, Turkey. Lets not forget the country has already collapsed in on itself once already and seems like it is looking to repeat history. Everyone thought, Russia would steamroll, Ukraine. That is obviously not happening. That is a fact. A supposed world power has stumbled facing a 2nd rate country with far less equipment, far more outdated and a fraction spent on defense in comparison. Yes, They have gotten a big boost with all of the support from, NATO and the U.S. Despite this, Russia should have neutralized all air fields, communications and depots within the first 3 days of the campaign. Individual troops or units may be fighting like a caged tiger but the entire, Russian Army as a whole is an unexpected joke. Occupying a country is one thing but invading? When one force has this much of a supposed advantage over another, this should not have even been a contest.

[@dinos9607]

@@brandonlevy8680 You do not understand what the Rrussian army is doing in Ukraine. You lack a lot of insight in this. Russians do not even want to do war there, they want to capture the country. They do not even recognized it as a nation but rather see it as a region out of which plenty of lands are Russian ones and to a large extent populated by ethnic Russian people. As such they do not want to wage war in lands that they see as theirs killing their own brethren. What they want to do is to pressure the resisting Ukrainians - who are mostly the western ones, the catholics - to surrender. One plan is to chop the country into regions and absorb the Russian ones (i.e. the complete coastline), Kiev and everything to the east and let the Ukrainians, i.e. the catholics of Lviv live in a landloocked country of their own to play it like Slovakians and Czechs. And of course under the promise of no NATO entry. Whatever the case, the future won't be bright for those Ukrainians. It will be good for Russians though. They will pull it through.

[@riptors9777]

@@dinos9607 Found the russian bot! Nothing you wrote stands up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny. The very fact that the russian army hasnt taken the capital of ukraine is counter enough to anything you brought up. The oh so dangerous and mighty russian army cant even defeat the military of ukraine... how humiliating. And the only thing people are shocked by is the amount of war crimes the russian army is blatantly committing

[@dinos9607]

​@@riptors9777 LOL! Did not see US taking Kabul or Bagdat in a week in spite of the US having had moved half a million soldiers and having had bases around and carriers and all the goodies... and of course carpet-bombed the whole place bringing death to 100s of 1000s of civilians during the carpet bombings (and overall several million - but who cares if it is the US doing the killings that is fine, isn't it?|). Well, the Russians placed inside Ukraine in the first week "a mere" 100,000 troops (Ukrainians have 300,000), using not really their latest stuff apart selective actions and deliberately avoided to enter the big cities including Kiev precisely because they want to avoid loss of life. Still they control 60% of the country from the North all around the East and the South - nothing of importance moves there without them checking, unless you think hand-held anti-tanks and kalasnikovs are of importance when making war against Russians. The Ukrainian resistance has thus been reduced to hit and run tactics ISIS/Taliban-style with Ukrainian soldiers and paramilitaries laying low inside the cities hiding behind civilians. All while the mass of Ukrainian army, by now toothless (without airforce and major systems, most taken out in the first couple of days), remains in the East just west of Donbas doing pretty much nothing but waiting, being fully encircled by the Russian troops. This is the reality. You talk of capture of Kiev. Yeah... you want to see blood isn't it? You are too unintelligent to understand what is going on. And since you are so unintelligent you make this dialogue really difficult. One cannot explain you what are the integrals when you can't even make 1+1=2.

[@Kilroy-was-here]

The price just went up 10 fold with the recent sanctions. What's a ruble worth these days?

[@NautilusSSN571]

Literally less than a cent in US Dollars.

[@stateofopportunity1286]

Doesn't much matter if they institute a new system for financial transactions.

[@pindot787]

@@stateofopportunity1286 still will be matter if only limited country using those new financial transaction.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

Rouble is currently worth two specs of dust.

[@paulwilson8061]

What about now?

[@suki4410]

In my opinion, this tank does not drive on wheels, it glides on lies.

[@kosh_vpaul]

There is even older version of this tank without crew in tower, it is soviet Object 477 Molot (can be translated as Hammer), development started somewhere in 80s in Ukraine(which was part of ussr at that time). Later, when first prototype was ready, it had way too many bugs and issues, so army rejected it. Btw, this rusty prototype is still somewhere in Ukraine, in city Kharkiv

[@Davyder_]

Kharkiv* ik that i will be annoying likely but Kharkov is russian spelling, in Ukrainian (and Ukraine where Kharkiv is) it is Kharkiv

[@Andy-kl1ry]

@@Davyder_ привыкай к старому написанию :)

[@Davyder_]

@@Andy-kl1ry ну якщо Харків візьмете то так і тому і бути, а поки-шо на горизонті тільки оборона БНР

[@Andy-kl1ry]

@@Davyder_ ок, пусть пока будет так :)

[@mphalmaric6744]

As a former tank commander, weapons and armour trials-officer, armoured-vehicle designer, and commercial manager of a number of international armoured vehicle programmes, I have never rated the Armata very highly. It is a vast vehicle with a highly delicate turret which is not tough enough to stand up to near misses - let alone a direct hit. Electro-optics are highly sensitive to explosions and strikes and, once these are knocked out, the design provides no back-up modes. One of the main advantages of unmanned turrets has always been that of a small frontal profile, allowing the crew to be below the line of sight and fire when in action. The T-14 makes a nonsense of that idea: the turret is as large as many conventional tanks and this is liable to be hit very quickly. Also, modern OTA munitions significantly reduces the safety of the crew - even when in the hull. Give me a Challenger 2 or Abrams any day.

[@paulh2180]

They stripped all the semiconductors out of the T14 and now it drives "automatically"!

[@JagaimoNeko]

First of all: thanks for your service. I am obviously not a tank commander but... can we really evaluate something that does not exist?

[@bear76009]

@@JagaimoNeko they made 100 of which 50 or less run still as they stopped production and didnt make a spare parts line.

[@luckystrike354]

Your title of designer and expert is questionable. There is no point in your arguments, because you do not see the cause and effect of the size of an uninhabited tower. You deliberately underestimate the capabilities of the tank and write all sorts of nonsense. When all the mounted electrical equipment is disabled, Abrams becomes the same pile of metal as armata, with the difference that the crew is more protected in armata. And I can assure you with all responsibility, if Russia had the same financing of the military industry as the United States, then Russia's weapons would be unattainable ahead technologically, compared with the weapons of NATO countries. But these are just fantasies

[@russellmarmon2847]

On paper all Russian military designs look amazing but in reality once they are battle tested in true life scenarios its a different matter altogether.

[@Justone372]

The first question should have been are the brakes on , did transmission lock up, or was that due to an axel seizure?

[@TomFynn]

"Russia sent some tanks to Syria for combat testing." This is like the Cold War of my childhood all over again. I'm crying with nostalgia.

[@gobynarthful]

abrams has been tested, as a software developer I can tell you, that the reason they dont test it or put it out on the field is they dont want anyone to know how much of a failure it is.

[@usapanda7303]

The feels are too strong. As the owner of a software company, I completely get it. Hahahhaha shit.

[@javierviana96]

I think It's a mix of fear of getting ridiculize because they don't know its capabilities on real combat and a lot of lies that don't show the true specs of the tank. The reason of why they are literaly throwing all the old cheap shit on Ukraine It's beyond my comprehension.

[@stuglife5514]

@@javierviana96 The reason theyre throwing all the old shit at Ukraine is because that’s what the majority of their equipment is. The majority of the russian tank fleet is made up of older T-72s supplemented by T-80s and T-90s. They’ve got about 3000 T72s in service, with another 2000 T-80s, and another 1000 T-90s. Comparatively, the US operates about 5,000 M1 abrams tanks with another 1000 M-60A3TTS Pattons in reserve and another 80 M103 super heavy tanks. So while the US can afford mass deployment of its newest tanks, like the most recent variant of the abrams, the Russians dont want to risk mass deploying their limited numbers of more advanced tanks, since against Ukraine their fighting T-74s, which is the ukranian copy of the T-72

[@Ludvigvanamadeus]

@@javierviana96 what 'old cheap shit'? About half of the Russian tanks sent to Ukraine are brand new (T-72B3 Obr. 2016, T80BVM, T-90A), the rest are mostly from late 80's (T-80U, T-72B).

[@Blodhelm]

@@Ludvigvanamadeus LoL 30 year old tanks getting abandoned and having their turrets pop off from poor design philosophies against a ragtag military they thought would roll over in 3 days isn't exactly inspiring dread in anyone anymore.

[@pointly]

Russia: "We made T-14 Armata tank. Europe will soon be ours!" USA: "So long as Emma has two moms, Europe can sleep peacefully."

[@jacobneault3264]

Your son will be gay

[@zatriot]

5:22 Gotta disagree here , neither Russia or USA came with the idea first , both had secret plans of developing a non-manned turret tank , USSR had a project tank called T-74 (Object 450) developed in 1971 but since at that time electronis were not that much advanced it was cancelled so im guessing T-14 main insipration was T-74 not TTB.

[@LOCKv3]

The biggest advantage the Abrams has IS the crew in the turret. The offensive capabilities with more eyes in a gun fight to help the gunner and the driver move fast to a better shooting location. Doing all that from a screen is really hard, ask all the TCs who try and navigate with the CITV. T-14 seems more of a long range Defensive shooter.

[@orlock20]

Also tanks are high maintenance that require daily work for peak performance. Turning a four man crew into a three man crew is the equivalent of one guy just going off and letting the other three do all the work.

[@andrzej3511]

Do you know why not a single T-14 has been spotted in Ukraine? Because none of them arrived on their own and Russia does not have enough tractors to tow them. Yeah... the Russians have found out that it is one thing to build a simple, even primitive tank, another thing is to create a modern tank that could stand up to the Abrams or the Leopard.

[@JohnTavastian]

I'd say it's more because it's so expensive to make. As most expensive military vehicles, they are made to order.

[@andrzej3511]

@@JohnTavastian The truth my friend, while you are naturally right, is even more shocking. Russia allegedly built 100 T-14s as pre-series for the supposedly mass production. (I even heard a rumor in the Russian-language media that it was supposed to be 50 a week!!!) Meanwhile, NONE of the hundred is actually a fully tank. Because there is no on-board computer, no laser sights, not even a digitally coded radio!!! There is nothing on board which is very expensive (to the extent that it is 2/3 the value of the tank) that makes several dozen tons of scrap metal a formidable weapon. Simply FANTOMS, which are supposed to look beautiful and very scary during the parade on Red Square... BULLSHIT The truth is: THERE IS NO T-14, other than parade mockups. If Russia really had even a few hundred T-14s, in Kiev it would have flown the white, red and blue flag long ago. Meanwhile, I can still see blue and yellow. :))) And let it stay that way - it's a prettier flag.

[@danlorett2184]

They're not fielding them in Ukraine because a) they don't have enough to make a difference anyways - they supposed have only about 30 prototypes or so that are usable and b) they have thousands of T72s and T90s just sitting around.

[@andrzej3511]

@@danlorett2184 I know all this, the thing is that the Kremlin propaganda has been spinning fairy tales for several years about thousands of T-14s waiting for an order to attack ... And the strangest thing is, many believe it. BTW: there are about a hundred of these "tanks", or rather their driving mock-ups. Just look at the parades on May 9 every year in Moscow's Red Square.

[@mcblaze1968]

They don't want embarrassing pictures of their new super tank getting wiped out.

[@seamusobrien2675]

When Mr P (the little mans man) came to Australia 10 years ago Russia positioned a Cruiser, two huge destroyers and a little tug boat off our shores. Yep, we sent out a customs vessel to watch the show. Who sends a threatening armada with a tug boat? Our customs vessel travelled without a tug screen, how brave we are. Ex Tug Capt. Port Botany.

[@patrickbo2045]

This all sound great on paper. Good thing it also sounds like it's going to stay on paper.

[@SB-ie8jn]

Composite armor is tricky and takes years of testing to get right, otherwise it will work against you. Lastly, auto loaders that are 100% reliable in a battle without crew intervention is almost impossible without some sort of other gun loading system. The tank is banged around so much, keeping that system running well is hard.

[@charleswest6372]

Tanks are still death traps. T14 no exception.

[@jebise1126]

not really... auto loaders are the future. are faster and less sensitive than human and if fails... you retreat other tanks still keep you more fire power on the field.

[@lqr824]

Look at what Boston Dynamics robots are doing running obstacle courses. Even if truly reliable autoloaders were impossible in 1970, 1990, 2010, things have advanced.

[@williamzk9083]

Autoloader will be needed for rounds bigger than 120mm. The German 130mm might be capable but even Rheinmental thinks auto-loader is best.

[@murphy7801]

French used autoloaders since the 90s and that's been fine. Given the do alot work in Africa which supply line nightmare and very dirty terrain. Think been properly tested. Also the French German combination tank project will use a french autoloader. This combination of work of Rheinmetall, Nexter and KMW. So no autoloaders work just fine

[@AleksandrStrizhevskiy]

Considering the number of these seen in use in Ukraine (0), the Russians are a very long way away from developing them.

[@paulwilson8061]

Why should these tanks be in ukraine? For russia its a local war. The Russians are preparing for the May 9 parade in all cities and they are not throwing everything they have to war with Ukraine.

[@olexery4054]

Why will they use it against Ukraine

[@biamboibifuro817]

The armata concept was actually designed back in 1953 by Alexander Marosov. I was called "object 450". It was too advanced for it's time.

[@worldoftancraft]

Aljeksandr Aljeksandrovich Morozov , mister We Use X /eks/.

[@Chris-zh9nd]

Must be fun trying to touch and manipulate those screens while bouncing around.

[@CadetTommy2145]

14:06 “largest Caliber ever fitted on a tank” *laughs in FV4005 183mm naval gun*

[@АлександрБалрог]

maybe because the FV4005 is a tank destroyer and not mass-produced

[@CadetTommy2145]

@@АлександрБалрог it’s in the name, “tank” destroyer. It still fits the criteria of a tank

[@absentia6164]

@@АлександрБалрог tank destroyer is a doctrine/role not a type of equipment, it's a British tank and the British did not use tank destroyer doctrine

[@АлександрБалрог]

@@absentia6164 thx for answer, accepted.

[@edervalgomes4032]

2:12 i feel really bad for the driver, i bet he was praying it was a mechanical problem

[@0MoTheG]

When they pulled on the tank and the chain did not move one bit, it was clear that the break was on, just not why.

[@GiRR007]

remote control drone tanks does sound interesting but would this make them MORE durable or less durable ? considering you no longer have a human crew to worry about dying but instead they are replaced with "delicate" electronics"

[@Johnny_3_D]

I think the question is "Can you really build 100k of them to stop worrying about vehicle losses?" Russian government doesn't give a shit about losing people in a battle, if it's not millions. In Russia, tank crews are cheaper than tanks; we have lots of crews and too little T14 tanks. If you build remote controlled or even self-controlled/automatic battle unit, it must be cheap (cheaper at least).

[@al-azimahmed1188]

Electronically dependant vehicles are probably better at night operations with heavy infantry support. In the day the commander would want to see the battlefield picture. Nothing beats a MK1-eye ball

[@SilentWarrior17]

The true weakness of this tank is that it can be towed by a tractor. . .

[@robertbarlow6715]

My tank was a M60A3 and the M88 could tow her at 28 mph.

[@SilentWarrior17]

@@robertbarlow6715 tractor still wins at cost efficiency.

[@robertbarlow6715]

@@SilentWarrior17 O I agree but for recovery the 88 wins.

[@SilentWarrior17]

@@robertbarlow6715 just you wait for the next upgrade of John deere. . they gonna attach some APS. . .

[@robertbarlow6715]

@@SilentWarrior17 lmao I know right

[@explorerdadsocal8047]

Those auto loaders are awesome….. they make the turret pop out like a jack in the box…. Very entertaining

[@denisionescu5072]

@Tearjerker and why are the shells positioned like that?

[@nicholasbrown668]

​@@denisionescu5072 they can be positioned like that with a manned crew as well lmao, the majority of tank designs for A LONG TIME (including American) had the ammo storage inside the crew compartment. Saying "the auto loader is the cause" just shows you lack knowledge on the subject

[@denisionescu5072]

@@nicholasbrown668 modern nato tanks have special compartments with blowoff panels.What they used 50 years ago has nothing to do with what they use now. Simply having it laying around like they used to back then can cause an explosion like that too, but the positioning of this autoloader makes it way worse and more likely as it is a huge caurosel dump located right beneath the crew and turret with no hope for blowoff panels. "Shows your luck of knowledge" stfu.

[@nicholasbrown668]

@@denisionescu5072 you mean what they used 20 years ago? Also several NATO nations use tanks that don't have blowout panels (major example being France and Germany, who's MBTs both have ammo stored in the crew compartment, though some upgraded German Leopard 2s have blowout panels) And again its not the Autoloader (as you keep saying) its literally just the placement of the ammo storage, the autoloader again has nothing to do with the placement of the ammo (as even designs of the T72 without an autoloader still had the ammo carousel in the turret ring) because there are tanks that use autoloaders and have blowout panels

[@denisionescu5072]

@@nicholasbrown668 and yeah, it still is the fault of the autoloader, had they not have it, they could've had blowoff panels and special ammo compartment, but the autoloader forces them to have this huge ammo dump in the worst place imaginable.

[@casbot71]

1:05 anyone looking in from the apartments across the way must be a little concerned…

[@roelkomduur8073]

Fun fact, T14 uses the same Diesel engine as the German WW2 Tiger... crap engine...

[@0nkelD0kt0r]

Whether or not the T-14 is a amazing in the field is hard to say, but the concept of having a common chassis for different types of combat vehicles is very good and should be considered by the west. Regarding autoloaders, I think they absolutely are the future. What people often completely overlook that this is not a "Russia vs the west" decision. The French Leclerc has an autoloader, and since France and Germany seem to be planing to produce the next MBT together, with Italy now also jumping on and GB as an observer to the project, it is likely that that tank will also feature an autoloader.

[@riptors9777]

The problem is that if you dont have a manual backup, a auto loader becomes a liability. Tanks get knocked around ALOT, and any delicate machinery will sooner or later (under battlefield conditions rather sooner) break, and even a minor machine failure can mean that your entire weapon system becomes defacto useless and needs repair. Thats the reason why the west is very hesitant to go full on auto loader and unmanned turrets.

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

KF-41 Lynx is aiming to do so. However it's really hard to have good chassis for both IFV and Tank. In the former you have to have room at the back for troops, in the latter you have to have all the protection you can afford and heavier weapon system. It's easier to do everything beside the tank (so IFV, APC, ATGM launcher, AA launcher, artillery platform, command vehicle and so on) Basically you can equip entire mechanised infantry regiment with it, but not entire land force

[@jagermainman10yearsago25]

The T-14 Armata definitely has a lot more technical advantages then the Abrams but considering how few of the T-14s are being produced and the delays of production brings in a Quantity vs Quality battle which we saw in WW2 with the Sherman and the Tiger tanks. Although if the T-14 and Abrams get put one one the Abrams will definitely have a hard time getting in good kill shots but the Abrams is also a lot more practical in combat situations. Overall a really good match up between the two tanks.

[@waifupatter4193]

Unlike Germany, Russia can make up for the lack of T-14s just with the sheer man power and unlike then Russia is now way better equipped

[@worldoftancraft]

@@waifupatter4193 Unlike? And who is going to replace the guys, who're going to, let's assume, execute your idioticy of sheeeeer noomberz?

[@MrRjizz]

Abrams is littearly on the edge of being obsolete. it cant even pen a T-14 frontally

[@waifupatter4193]

@@worldoftancraft what are you talking about

[@worldoftancraft]

@@waifupatter4193 your comment?

[@BuckeyeRutabaga]

I think the economic sanctions that followed the annexation of Crimea back in 2014 is what largely contributed to scrapping the T-14 mass production plans. There were other less dramatic but still significant economic hurdles that impacted Russia's military budget i.e. sharp drop in oil prices in late 2015 which were arguably artificial and took place in response to Russia's operation in Syria and which were largely orchestrated by pissed off Saudis and Obama administration. If there was no Crimea and no Syria in the last decade (or if Russia chose to not get involved) then I think they'd have more extra cash to make more T-14s. Not saying that Russia made any mistakes here. I would even say that in the larger scheme of things, Russia balanced their priorities quite well but it caused them to put the T-14 mass production (and likely some other defense projects) on a backburner.

[@jebise1126]

nah... there would never be enough money... actually with oil prices and other prices going up now they might have enough money now... its also tank for the future. they still have more than enough tanks in reserve for upgrades for now

[@alexandermcdowell4755]

1. The crew being separated from the turret doesn’t make the tank more lethal. It protects the crew from a catastrophic ammo detonation. (Historically an issue with Russian tanks) 2. The auto loader debate has gone on for years. Having worked with autoloaders, nothing sucks more than having it malfunction right when you need it. (I’ll take the extra man.) 3. The Americans deviated from an unmanned turrets on main battle tanks for a reason. a. The technology didn’t exist at the time to make it cost effective, and the amount of electric power required to operate the fire control is so high that the vehicle would have to never stop running in order to generate the necessary charge. b. Situational awareness is key in modern combat. Cameras are cool and all, but nothing beats the ability to stick your head out of the hatch and take a look around without having your head knocked off by a main gun.

[@mlind66]

This was a very well put together video, and overall, I think it makes some good points. I think there's some important context lacking here, though. You talked about the Russian economy and its military technology without talking about the impact of sanctions, particularly the more serious set of sanctions on Russia that Congress passed with a veto proof majority in 2017. Those sanctions have made it very difficult for Russia to obtain the electronics, sensors, optics, and software it needs to make the T-14 concept work. Second, the Nagorno-Karabakh War demonstrates that loitering munitions are the new king of the battlefield. Just a few $100,000 drones could make pretty quick work of this $9.5 million tank. Third, what's with the weird comment about recruiting ads? Without warfighters, expensive equipment will just sit there as an easy target. We don't have a draft, like Russia, so we need to spend money on recruiting soldiers. Note that Russia, even with its draft, cannot meet its authorized manpower requirements and draft dodging is common there.

[@someguy3711]

The comment about the recruiting ads is because russian ads feature russian soldiers or special ops members doing very important/dangerous jobs. Meanwhile american recruitment ads focus on diversity or lgbt inclusion, showcasing a female soldier talking about how she wanted to make both her moms proud. One is still trying the other has already started to play taps. Russia is still trying to recruit soldiers, the us seems trying to recruit latte sipping non binary starbucks crowd with it's marketing.

[@vladimirnikolskiy]

Hello Matt! The sanctions did make it difficult for Russia to obtain electronics, sensors, and so on, but they also accelerated the technical process in Russia. Sanctions - a double-edged sword - hit on both sides. Now, thanks to the sanctions, thermal imagers are made in Russia, and not bought in France, ship and helicopter engines are made in Russia, not in Ukraine, microcontrollers and processors are also their own - "Baikal" , "Elbrus" and others. Russia has now replaced up to 60% of food imports and has become the largest exporter of grain. Of course, Russia is not the most advanced country, but it is self-sufficient. If no one on our planet wants to cooperate with Russia, she will survive, she has everything she needs for life and development, and an attack on Russia is the death of all life on Earth. Can you say the same about your country?

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@@someguy3711 I mean, you say that, but the last time Russians attacked US troops in Syria, over 100 Russians died rather quickly. Whether straight or whatever, the Americans are hardly pushovers with their doctrine and technical superiority. Russian gruffness won't match US firepower, which is exactly why Russia is upgrading. Whether that upgrade means anything is anyone's guess. Russia is rather infamous for talking up their equipment but it never actually being as great.

[@jebise1126]

well... no... drones are quite new but that will not last. sure military will have to adapt on drones but sooner or later drone protection system will appear and than it will not be so easy for drones to just destroy tanks. either will there be drones to target drones or something else...

[@maasl3873]

If you are really interested in comparison of Western and Eastern tanks, there is a great lecture on eastern and western tank development on the Panzermuseum Channel. Basically the idea of a middle gun carrier was developed in the 1970s in the USA and Germany but rejected because of the huge risk of firepower kill because the main weapon on is less protected and an easy target sitting solely on top. And the Russians seem to have problems with the programming of the software to run the vehicle, which seems to be the reason the tank stopped and could not roll but had to put on a trailer.

[@galicije83]

This tank on red square after they pull of brake start and goes with any other help...it was driver error not the tank, because it was young conscreept driver, not profecional from UVZ...at that time.T14 was on factory trail not in army...some smart man deside to let this rookie drive this new moder tank..to modern for them who luck of training on them ..

[@worldoftancraft]

Ju knouu thoze Eaztern Tænks vs ones of Uuest. There are no other names - there's no: separate political bodies, states, countries, ethnos.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Don't worry we'll have real world battlefield statistics soon when they go head to head in ww3

[@MnktoDave]

@@Robert-cu9bm Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[@miraphycs7377]

Japanese Type 10 and Type 90 have the fastest autoloader, most definitely faster than human manual loading

[@ls200076]

True

[@wreck993]

True but, one less crewman means in degraded operations it's capabilities to continue fighting goes into the toilet!

[@rayotoxi1509]

@@wreck993 jeah but loading a round every sec on fast mode is worth it If you have 5 tanks and everyone has fast loading speed selected thats 10 rounds in 2 seconds and standart reload is 3sec autoloaders are starting to get better then humanloaders and at one point you need autoloaders if we want to switch to a 130mm cannon the rounds will just get bigger and heavier

[@anhtunguyen781]

@@wreck993 I mean, I don't think it matters too much. Since if something ever gonna happen to the driving crew, I bet it will probably be devastating a lot of the time and cripple the ability to continue the fight, a bonus crew member won't help much. Also having a fast loader might be more beneficial than you think but well, we haven't seen the T14 in actual war yey

[@KitchenFSink]

@@wreck993 Yeah but it also means, more money spent on training, more supplies and more equipment is needed, more wages paid. That or less crews. And as for the repairing/maintenance argument, tanks don't travel alone. They are accompanied by a whole lot of non-combat units such as engineering battalions, maintenance crews etc...Only real benefit of the manual loader is a boost in morale and one more human to do some work if you're very fucked, and surviving out of the tank because it got knocked out.