Radical or Ridiculous? | T-14 Armata | Tank Chats

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Tank Nuts - let us know your thoughts about this video in the comments below.

[@phunkracy]

Your information about T-14's engine is wildly untrue, both in claiming that its somehow derived from german WW2 engine and claiming that its original purpose was in gas pumps etc. Whoever wrote the script clearly didnt do his homework, the same misinformation is commonly found on internet threads of Ill repute, its absolutely ridiculous that a tank museum just reposts internet hoaxes.

[@scottbattaglia8595]

It's ridiculous, since it's not a real production tank and why do so many people even care, especially historians, yea not surprised you don't have one, Russia has like maybe 8 total ........🤦

[@Sajuuk]

How about radically ridiculous? 😁

[@WindHaze10]

Thinly armored turret is a massive mistake, enabling any IFV to achieve a mission kill against it. So far IFV could reastically (disregarding surprise flanking shots) defeat a MBT is with ATGM but not you just need to hit the turret enough times. Firepower wise it is definite world beater because that is simple tech that russia has. Problems arise with quality of electronics.

[@scottbattaglia8595]

@@dtrain1634 show me 15 in a picture at once .....I think they only have 8. This is the same country who repainted markings on nuclear weapons during may day parade........lol if you don't see it, they don't have it. 😁

[@biddyboy1570]

T-14 has highly effective stealth coating. It's never been seen on the battlefield.

[@SCH292]

T-14 is the most expensive ricer tank of all time.

[@yui.3218]

lmfaoooo🤣🤣

[@chiragsanghvi5865]

Hahahah

[@TgamerBio5529]

Evidence!?!? 😂😂😂

[@DataC0llect0r]

Daaaammmmmmnnnnn

[@AnythingMachine]

Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said, by so many, about so few tanks

[@captainbean3114]

preach

[@orbitalair2103]

Maus ? e100? Sgt York? Divad?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

More has probably been written about Tiger tanks than all other tanks combined.

[@dyddsko]

U should get ur ears checked

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

@TTTT-oc4eb original poster said about "so few tanks". There weren't a ton of Tigers or King Tigers, but at least those saw combat on multiple fronts and were made in the hundreds. There are, what, maybe a dozen T-14? And they're all just test beds/prototypes. I agree that there is too much written on the Tiger and King Tiger, but at least there is a track record there.

[@comytigerzon8513]

"But by the time this film is released it may well be that this tank is in actual combat"- the most optimistic statement of the year. Bravo!

[@Mortablunt]

Entered combat a few months ago

[@ulrichkalber9039]

@@Mortablunt claimed to be in combat a few month ago. so far only claims.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@dtrain1634 we don't bring those to parades

[@centurionoomae1543]

@@dtrain1634 Very good point. I concur.

[@fibber2u]

@@dtrain1634 At least the British Army would never have a 40 mile long trafic jam in the combat zone. So there are some advantages to never having enough of anything.

[@capaneus184]

I unironically love a video that takes 10+ minutes to set the stage and fill in the necessary background knowledge before diving into the stated subject matter. Great content!

[@bubblezovlove7213]

That tends to be a speech pattern for me because when I have something to say, there's detail and its something I've really thought about. This confuses and confounds exactly the right people that are pointless spoken to about anything complex anyway... Not intentionally, I'm happy speaking to almost anyone. But it let's me know who can handle/be arsed with what in any given attempt at conversation.... ;)

[@geesehoward700]

much like the T-14 except for the diving in part.

[@timovangalen1589]

Me too. I'm addicted to context.

[@RKarmaKill]

This museum has a staff rated 5 stars

[@aimformyheadplease]

Sooo agreed! There are so many military history/militaria channels that have good looking titles and even pre-ambles, but are 100% auto translator repetitive fluff that barely scratches the surface of the topic in question. So when finding a really good channel, videos that remind me of university or conference lectures, I just soak it in, and the more loosely associated but still relevant in some way the better, haha. Gimme as much background as ya have tank museum!!

[@hallamhal]

Just needs more ERA, ERA solves everything. I installed some ERA before my exams, got A* in all of them. Installed some on my dog and it turned into a wolf

[@RounderRounder]

Best give it to the Ukrainians then if it needs ERA

[@benwinter2420]

Tsk

[@TheTuberKnownAsMe]

Just wait for those F16 ERA variants in the hands of the Ukraine air forces. It will be glorious

[@magnetmannenbannanen]

i installed some ERA on my Rav4, it turned into a hangarship, currently docked in oslo, look it up.

[@aykaykalash]

Bro u need ERA on yor ERA

[@bardylon]

I feel like any footage of the T-14 should come with the disclaimer “Not actual game footage” 😂

[@bigrob966]

The best way to discern real footage is to determine whether the turret is spinning wildly. If it is, it's real footage.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

​​@@bigrob966T14 is a dual use vehicle. Tank and Helicopter all in one.

[@namewarvergeben]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe eeking out a few extra centimeters in the turret-tossing challenge

[@jean-yvesmead3972]

@@bigrob966 Isn't it amazing what one can power with clockwork?

[@ablrcklnthewall]

If it's stuck then it's a T14

[@douglasmcdonald2770]

As a former M1A1 tank commander. I can not count how many holes I would have got stuck in ,if I could have not stuck my head out of the hatch to see the depth of the hole. Don't know how many times I said " Loader how much room do I have on the left side." This layout will work on flat desert terrain , go down narrow trails , defiles, mine lanes good luck.

[@deansmits006]

Even with today's advanced sensors, probably works great to stick your head out and look from time to time.

[@bretts3057]

I think this is a solid point in abstract, but I also think it can be entirely solved through training and good cameras. Once you know your vehicles clearance, you just know. As long as training had a lot of tight clearance situations without ability to g.o.a.l (get out and look) I see it as a non issue.

[@PxThucydides]

I think you have probably put your finger on the problem. Video might seem like a good idea but might just not be good enough to work when someone is shooting at you.

[@benholroyd5221]

@@PxThucydides surely you most want cameras when someone is shooting at you. The loader won't be available to stick their head out at that point, even if they were stupid enough to want to.

[@barthoving2053]

​@@bretts3057 Two problems. Everything breaks, especially in the military. So failing sensors and cameras will be a problem. The problem with clearance is not the size of the tank but size of what you need to clear through. Flipping through multiple camera angles might help. But those are not as flexible as human peeking about. There is a reason with precise manoeuvring like (off))loading a flatbed you see outside help. And training involves cost and time. In a prolonged war that's a problem. And in peace if you rely on conscripts to. In reality better training is hard to achieve. Within and outside the military. With enough skill and talent you can make a one man turret work. That does not make it a design.

[@y.m.9277]

The brief description of the Soviet tank history is surprisingly objective and relatively unbiased by political grounds. Such professionalism.

[@gonotgone1]

Very interesting hearing the development history of Cold War Russian tanks. Helps a lot with understanding how the T14 came about.

[@shawnmiller4781]

Agreed, it was a great primer

[@Taketimeout3]

You mean, didn't come about.

[@TrollOfReason]

Yar! Tho, it was a bit light on the forces that have kept the tank out of mass production. "Corruption" is correct, yet isn't really illustrative of the hurdles the tank has faced. Russian heavy industry - the stuff what can actually make the tools to make other stuff, including more heavy industry - is rife with corruption & hampered by decades of sanctions. From materials fraud to visa hostage taking, from a lack of hardened electronics from the West to a *de facto* embargo on certain types of sensors not made in Russia. The tale of the T-14's failure to launch is, I think, worthy of its own video.

[@Klaaism]

Lazerpig does a great breakdown or rather rips apart the T14... its a great watch.

[@williamzk9083]

@@Klaaism Lazerpig is satirist. Unfortunatly a lot of the outrageous stuff he says is funny but not true. For instance the claim that the T-14 used a copy of the Porsche Tiger Ferdinand Engines. He does reveal genuine information but you don't know what is hyperbole or fact.

[@darkmatter6714]

This tank’s capabilities only exists on paper. The budget to build it went into super yachts and private mansions

[@timbo66]

Paper tank only. It won`t last against a real tank, as history has proved again and again, Plus, they can`t get the electronics necessary.

[@jamesgornall5731]

​@@timbo66real tanks can't stand against real antitank weapons. The pendulum once again swings from advantage: armour to advantage: firepower

[@jamesgornall5731]

​@@timbo66they have back channels for electronics, it's a new term, either "smuggling" or "sanctions-busting" either will do.

[@uroskostic8570]

@@timbo66 a real tank? which real tank you have in mind? leo-2 which got busted in Syria, or M1 which got busted in iraq?

[@mfakhripratama2266]

Nah if armata produced in big numbers, it will be pretty good for long range flat terrain or hulldown position. But in close combat especially city it will suck so much with crew only have visibility from camera

[@CaptainCoffee37]

I feel like the traditional ‘Tank Triangle’ of Armor/Firepower/Mobility, should be amended to include ergonomics/crew as a 4th aspect. You can create a tank that on paper is perfectly balanced and has amazing Armor, Firepower, and Mobility but have it still perform terribly due to being difficult to use. In my opinion this is why so many games appear to have a ‘Russian bias’, because they ignore all these hard to quantify aspects.

[@38centimeters]

Russian tanks are generally ok on paper but terribly made in factories due to their philosophy of quantity over quantity. For example the t34 is a legendary tank however the only reason for that is that there were so many made because it had a loss rate of more than 80% percent (horrible for a tank). Russian tanks were never something special and still are unimpressively made.

[@adeptusaegis3189]

@@38centimeters LOL. You don't seem to have heard that almost 50,000 Sherman was buil. Yes, it was such a bad tank, almost like the T-34.

[@paleoWT]

In context, 80,000 T34s were made with another 10,000 if you include SPGs made on its chassis. The Sherman was built for simplicity. It’s design put focus on its crew, making easily repairable parts and good survivability. The build quality was substantially higher with a much better k/d rate. Unlike the t34 the Sherman was a much higher quality, although not the best quality still better than the Russians.

[@adeptusaegis3189]

@@paleoWT You talk about self-propelled guns based on the T-34, but you are silent about ~ 9000 GMC M10 and M36 based on M4. Also, you conveniently forget that the T-34 was produced for 6 years, and the M4 Sherman for 3 years. If the Yankees had been at war since 1941, they would have produced more M4s. In fact, no, they wouldn't. Because the M4 is 1942. If you add the M3 Lee and SPG on chassis M3, like Prist, you will get similar numbers to the T-34. You're talking about survival, but Sherman in 1942 penetrated by all German anti-tank weapons and all new panzers. When the Americans tried to make a "survivable" tank, they failed with T1 heavy and M6 heavy. You talk about the focus of Sherman's design on the crew, but it was never the feature design of the M4 by himself M2 and M3 had a crew of 6-7 men and M4 as their legacy, retained this huge interior space, now with a crew of 5 men. For comparison, the T-34 was originally a tank for a crew of 4 men. Another typical Yankee design is M3 light and it was no less cramped than the T-34. M4 was a tank that the United States could produce by tens of thousands and which matched minimum required specifications: armament (3-inch gun), protection (protection from bullets, splinters and 37mm PAK), was reliable, enough mobile and had a turret, unlike the M3 Li. As for k/d rate, then Wehrmacht losses on the eastern front accounted for more than 70% of the total losses on all fronts from 1941 to 1945. The backbone of the German military machine was destroyed in the Soviet steppes. And the T-34 was part of it.

[@korana6308]

@@38centimeters mate, you are comparing 1930s and 1940s production of tanks to the modern day one. It is not the same today. And it was also the same for almost any country, as Germany was suffering with it's poor quality of production at the end of the war as well. Modern day production of the Russian tanks is of the high quality, with regards to the T90 tanks...

[@paulvarn4712]

"getting any tank onto the battlefield is problematic." Getting any tank off the battlefield in working condition is near impossible.

[@Rusian34]

На каждое действие есть противодействие! Ньютон.

[@nikolaytinick6382]

Походу уже реально, вывести с поля боя заведëный исправный танк

[@tomrabe8037]

This applies primarily to Leos and all American Excavators.

[@jameskenyon8873]

Spoken by someone who has never been on a tank in their life. Stick to video games.

[@BlockdaCoolguy]

​@@tomrabe8037and also the tanks the T-90 of Russia, T-72 of Russia anf probably soon T-30 of Russia?

[@donnieweston3249]

Only thing we know for sure is that the turret rotates

[@trolleriffic]

Whether the crew want it to or not if the videos are anything to go by.

[@TheLumberjack1987]

it's the new acorn seed lift off assistant mode, helps increase turret toss heights by up to 69%

[@koenvangeleuken6544]

yes but did they fit the same turret spring as in the older tanks?

[@dlxmarks]

I love that they flex a spinning turret as the mark of peak tank design.

[@unrealbot3027]

​@@dlxmarkshorizontal traverse speed of a MBT is indeed a mark of its strength, agility of its turret ring lol.

[@rafis117]

You'd think a fume extractor would still be valuable to prevent long term fouling even if it's not needed as urgently in an unmanned turret.

[@arctic_haze]

Not if the survivality of your tank in the battlefield is under one hour.

[@richardthomas598]

Also corrosion could be an issy.

[@HE-162]

It may be that the breech and or the entire turret assembly is in some way hermetically sealed, and kept at a high enough positive pressure that the breech opening doesn’t let in much smoke(that can easily be handled by filtration). Could also be that it’s not really an actual “meant to be fielded” tank and so there simply hasn’t been a fume extractor added to the design yet.

[@a_sweetroll1627]

Dont need one when one will get provided when it gets penned.

[@jamesgornall5731]

​@@arctic_hazewell, that's about how long this "counterattack will make headway, yeah?

[@timovangalen1589]

This is an excellent channel. You guys present everything so clearly without any unnecessary bells and whistles.

[@Dollymix001]

Apart from the fact that they literally hate Russia and are particularly biased against Russian tanks for no good reason.

[@gp-network4370]

@@Dollymix001 .... They hate bad tanks in general... not just russian tanks... but for the most parts, russian tanks are bad overall.

[@timovangalen1589]

@@Dollymix001 Russian tanks do suck though. The war has exposed fatal flaws in both their design and doctrine. Even if the T-14 supposedly addresses those flaws, it's all theoretical until it faces the acid test of combat. Until the Russians can build enough of them to actually field in Ukraine or elsewhere, the T-14 is propaganda.

[@rubenskiii]

@@Dollymix001ah yes you can see the hate so clearly, oh wait no they are facts. Maybe take a moment to think for a bit. If all this video says is lies, why no T-14 on the battlefield? Russia’s most modern tank is not adequate, as each week they atleast lose 2 to standard types of treaths. So if T-14 was a much better tank it would be useful wouldn’t it?

[@notsum362]

​@Dollymix001 Russian tanks are trash, wheres the hate? Lol go complain to whoever tf it is thats in charge of manufacturing these rubbish tin cans

[@gneisenau89]

Thanks for providing the most reliable information on armored weapons systems available anywhere. It's interesting that supply chain issues seem to be the tank's Achilles heel. The decision to cancel production of the tank probably signals that a number of these technologies were too big of a stretch, and the likelihood of getting them all to work with domestically available equipment was slim.

[@acedogboy8421]

Reliable untill they talked abt the engine….

[@limitlessLtd]

The information is inherently flawed if you believe anything Russia says. Russia has claimed their T-90s use modern optics and infrared, captured T90Ms (the most modern variant) prove this wrong. Literally nothing russia says is true or reliable, and honestly you'd be more accurate believing the opposite of what Russia says. Westerners repeatedly believing Russian propaganda and then being subsequently proven wrong is the wests biggest achilles heel, too willing to listen to humans lie.

[@tedferkin]

Chieftain has also spoken about the ever present issue of ergonomics as well. Good that they are in a nice little protected tub. However, commander cannot poke his head out to have a look around, which is still the best way of getting situational awareness. They are reliant on a very small number of optics to see outside the tank, disable those with something as simple as paint and they are buggered. Given the ambushes that Ukraine seem to be able to set for the Russian tank crews, this would be my least favourite tank to go into battle with. I think even the T54/55 might be better, the extra crewman for logistics and maintenance would be a bonus for a start. It will be interesting to see how the Challenger and Leopard tanks fair in this "modern" warfare as well.

[@BlutoandCo]

Its called corruption, not supply chain issues 😂

[@randomka-52alligatorthatis34]

@@BlutoandCo Having 3 different MBTs in service with the largest country in the world is going to run into supply chain issues nothing shocking. Corruption is another whole issue.

[@whitetiana3022]

making yourself dependent from countries you may potentially go to war with for parts to build your tanks is just pure genius.

[@BM-jy6cb]

Selling advanced military equipment componentry to countries you may go to war with is also genius. But then we've come to expect nothing less from the French.

[@KvotheArlinden]

I'm French. Don't worry the weapon we sell to our customers, are not as efficient as the real ones we have.

[@praetorian3902]

@@BM-jy6cb The Americans were selling oil to Japan before Pearl Harbor. I refuse to believe they didn't suspect a war was gonna happen (intelligence department).

[@peterwilson5528]

BOT your channel has no content.

[@Eliastion]

It's not like it was their decision - it's not easy to establish high-tech industry, especially if your country is so corrupt that tryiing to throw money at the project just fills someone's pockets along the way instead. But even at much lower levels of corruption you can see serious issues Western countries have with supply lines for various necessary stuff starting either in China or in countries likely to be on the frontline if a war in South-East Asia breaks out...

[@devinbraun1852]

As an old retired Armored Cav guy, I found this to be a great informative video. Well worth the watch if one is knowledgeable or interested in armor, it’s development, and the practical issues affecting its production and employment. Thanks Tank Museum.

[@projectw.a.a.p.f.t.a.d7762]

Were you ever stationed in Korea? 2/72?

[@devinbraun1852]

@@projectw.a.a.p.f.t.a.d7762 No, I was never stationed there. I went TDY once for a planning conference, but that is my only experience in Korea.

[@SlinkyTWF]

Former 19E1/2 from 348th ACAV (ARNG) here. Represent!

[@Conserpov]

_> I found this to be a great informative video._ I find you gullible.

[@devinbraun1852]

@@Conserpov perfectly irrelevant

[@markwhite168]

Since tank museum is now covering new vehicles, maybe it might make an interesting episode on KF51 Panther?

[@interpl6089]

It's a technology demonstrator, nothing else. Leopard 2A8 is expected to be produced instead and that also doesn't exist anywhere other than on paper and hard drives.

[@TimRHillard]

M1 tanker here from the 80's. I am not sold on unmanned turrets. It sure was nice for the Commander and loader to stick their heads out for maneuvering, map reading, just knowing what was going on. You are not always engaged, so their are plenty of times you can safely ride like that. I know there is GPS one, but I'd not rely on that too much. You gotta have mad map skills to be a great tanker.

[@MadnerKami]

Yup. A great many things seem plausible, sensible and even desireable on paper, until they collide with reality.

[@emberfist8347]

Really because last I checked GPS was exactly why the coalition won against Saddam.

[@hydrolox3953]

​@@emberfist8347it was one of many reasons.

[@TimRHillard]

@@emberfist8347 Right on. Just saying that map reading is still important, as there are a number of situations where it might nit be available. And if ur lost, ur not in the fight.

[@TimRHillard]

@@MadnerKami Also, the law of unintended consequences. I can imagine when those fancy cameras fail, you'll see someone riding on top of the turret so can see what's up, and not run over your infantry! With a long commo cord stretched and tangled😁😁. I hope the at least weld a hook on top to hang onto.

[@juusolatva]

there is some confusion about the T-95, since multiple different prototypes were called that, but the actual predecessor to the T-14 was called the Object 195, which also had the crew in the hull, the X-shaped diesel engine and other similarities, although it did have even more advanced features like a 152mm smoothbore cannon, a 30mm autocannon and radar. you can find a couple of pictures of it online. Russia has had real problems with the cost and production of the T-14, so it's not surprising it lacks some features of the predecessor, which would further complicate the production and cost more. they will most likely stick to mainly producing the T-90M instead of the T-14 anyway. I would like to add that the X-shaped diesel in Object 195 and T-14 is not based on a WW2 German diesel engine, which had for example its pistons at a different angle compared to the Russian one, 16 cylinders for a total of 36.6 liters and it was air-cooled. the Russian one on the other hand has 12 cylinders for total of about 35 liters and it is liquid-cooled with an intercooler among other major differences like compression ratio and cylinder bore. the main similarities are the X-shape, both having twin turbochargers and that both engines were built for tanks, but the German engine was not the only X-shaped engine ever built nor the first one, so the claim is dubious in my opinion, although I will admit that X-shaped engines are rare. if you are still in doubt, you can look at schematics and pictures of both and compare them.

[@durial702]

Thank you for this comment.

[@Klaaism]

Must have had next gen thermo-optical active camouflage since there's so few sightings.

[@Max_Da_G]

THANK YOU! Someone knows his stuff.

[@koppanykovacs8745]

Lazerpig made these mistakes too.

[@danielvandersall6756]

I love how in so many action vids of this tank the turret is spinning. It actually looks like they just wound up the thing and let it go. Do they think that this proves that it's a real tank? I have to assume, based on the total lack of sightings of this tank in ANY war zone in the world (they claimed it has been used in Syria, the most public and televised war in history. Try to find a single video of it in action. Ditto Ukraine; I've seen some vids that show it cruising in the country, that could have been shot anywhere.) This is just another parade weapon; looks pretty at shows, can barely perform in the field.

[@stupidburp]

It failed even in a parade. Broke down in a cloud of smoke. The engine is hopelessly bad.

[@sankaplays3098]

Thats because they cut and paste the footage of the turret to make it seem like its very long, its actually a small fragment displaying the turrets two way stabilization and turret rotation speed. Every armored vehicle is one armor penetrating shell away from being a fireball, its some fascade that "our tanks are so much better"

[@bcluett1697]

Well, if there was a video they probably filmed it themselves. I guess they didn't like what they saw or they'd be broadcasting it to the moon and back.

[@sankaplays3098]

@@bcluett1697 It was promotional material from the arms production company, like Western arms makers make for their tanks, I dont know why everybody is looking into this so hard.

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

The "turret" is actually a radar unit.

[@patrickshanley4466]

Simply an OUTSTANDING VIDEO. By far the best I have seen on the T-14.👍

[@ewaldseiland8558]

It doesn't answer its titular question though

[@BizzLeVrai]

watch lazerpig videos about the t14

[@tomk3732]

Lol.

[@remote24]

rheinmetall took it very serious when russians claimed to have a better cannon and named their new tankdesign panther again

[@saucyinnit8799]

I wonder if they fixed their transmission.

[@emergcon]

The 14 stands for the number of units that will be produced.

[@dyddsko]

21 have been produced, more in the future

[@KY-qx9ip]

*Numbers of the functioning ones

[@lochnessspeedwerkz6557]

​@@dyddsko "more in the future 🤡" Explain how you think that is possible.

[@-Zevin-]

@@lochnessspeedwerkz6557 Well Russian MOD claimed to be starting mass production 200 units per year. If that happens is yet to be seen. However we likely will see it used in the coming weeks or months in combat. It isn't surprising we haven't seen them used yet. Russia doesn't want to risk them being captured. However if any large Ukrainian offensive does happen using western tanks, expect the possibility of T-14 being used for the first time.

[@lochnessspeedwerkz6557]

@@-Zevin- Russians claim a whole lot of things dont they? If you believe any of that hogwash, I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.

[@sclarin2]

the T14 and the SU57...legends of their time...literally.

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

Always on Action outside their intended Purposes

[@LyonPercival]

Literally just legends 😂

[@michaelpielorz9283]

No one really knows how it performs in battle, the only thing we know for sure is his fearsome parking brake so T 14 is capable to block a vital supply road for hours!!

[@Lonewolfmike]

@@dtrain1634 Russia relies on foreign electronics for their tanks and jets. Now that those avenues have dried up the Russians are really hurting. Oh, and the parts for their jets rely on foreign countries and companies for their parts as well. They don't have the internal structure to make their own electronics for their vehicles and their maintenance crews, from all I have seen, are poorly trained. They are having to bring back retired jet pilots for their air force and they have sent the people who train pilots to the front lines as well so they are seriously lacking in pilot training. And then you have the HUGE elephant in the room of all of the corruption in the Russian military. There have literally been Millions and Millions of dollars stolen from projects up and down the line.

[@CloneDAnon]

@@Lonewolfmike No, it does not. Don't lie.

[@arturscherbakov2543]

@@dtrain1634 lmao, troll level: compare raw prototype (which project was closed at 202 by lack of western tech) that russians call super-duper mother-f-ckr-no-analogues-tank with mil inspection reports. new level of copium detected.

[@arturscherbakov2543]

@@dtrain1634 "oh dear! " lmao, next troll level: when somebody pointed that russians 100% depends on "wester" tech in their mil-tech, just copy random bs about Ukraine economisc. "The rationale that Russia is reliant on Western electronics is also deeply flawed." Yeap "deeply flawed", that is why russia has no own facilities for heavy equipment, jets, rockets and other hight-tech stuff. Even russian vital economic sector - gas and oil mining totally based on foreign tech. That's how mammoths die. In our case - very stupid and aggressive mammoth.

[@arturscherbakov2543]

@@dtrain1634 seems you need more spaces between sentences. Which kind of facts? Imagine a factory. This factory made just nails. But the machine that made nails was made in other country. What happened if this country will stop maintance of this machine, stop sell spare parts and consumables? Hope it's enough clear for you. It's how thing works around the world. Globalisation. And yeap, since this point - lots of this "machines" that used in russia were made in EU, Japan and USA. As you said - this is basics. P.S. you free to use your native language 😉

[@burlatsdemontaigne6147]

Imagine the price of a captured T14. Great Vid Mr Willey

[@jb03hf]

Whatever the price of scrap steel is times the weight of it.

[@jeremypnet]

Imagine the price of an uncaptured one.

[@Carl0s695]

Worth it's weight in tin

[@thedungeondelver]

Well, considering there's probably a tank museum that could use a Panther engine, there's got to be some intrinsic value to it, there.

[@arturwiebe7482]

Yeah, the Russians are also looking forward to capture one.

[@doc.j.7246]

Another DW classic - and thank you Bovington for all this amazing content!

[@benwinter2420]

Enough fore lock tugging . . sugar is bad for the health

[@rockkitty100]

Thanks!

[@archyology]

Really great video, I appreciated the in-depth dive into Soviet-era tank design philosophy.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Russia lost 2.000 tank but they still have 10.000 more.

[@asknicholas4775]

So happy for these videos, the weekend has never begun before I can log off and enjoy your informational pieces. Keep up the good work! Big fan!

[@SteamCrane]

Remote viewing has always been a problem, most recently with the KC-46 remote boom control station. It takes conscious effort to visualize which direction you are looking. A solution might be a "transparent hull", ie a cyclorama of screens surrounding the crew.

[@Appletank8]

I've heard theories of using the F-35's camera system + a headset to allow operators to virtually see out of a vehicle without needing vision blocks or looking outside.

[@SteamCrane]

@@Appletank8 That's what I had in mind. I've heard the term "glass floor".

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

​@@SteamCrane that would come in handy, though it's not a thing even in western tanks, though it would increase SA greatly. And one can be certain when it is released, it will be in a US tank, not a Russian one

[@SteamCrane]

@@BoraHorzaGobuchul With both Russia and China, we are seeing the results of Central Planning, which substitutes some corrupt official's limited knowledge of what is needed for peoples' individual decisions. If there had been freedom, both countries might have gotten serious about microelectronics, along with many other needed technologies.

[@BasedMan]

Or simply add a digital indicator to the HUD or screen which shows you the turrets relative direction to the hull. Commonly done in videogames, but it does help you visualize where are you going, what position the turret is, and what are you looking at on a quick glance.

[@dogless132]

Thanks!

[@Lintary]

As a design concept of putting the crew in one highly protected area low as possible makes a lot of sense, but in order to get away with that you do need some serious high tech and the question is simply one of cost, what is cheaper a higher risk of loosing crew or a vastly more expensive combat machine in procurement and operation.

[@nordoceltic7225]

IMO people MASSIVELY overplay how much compute power goes into military systems for a combat vehicle. For example lets look at western aircraft. F-16 of the 1990's type. Do you know the popular computer game DCS world fully simulates, real time, the full avionic systems of an F-16, at least the declassified parts. Meanwhile the sim it also makes demands of the player's computer to render the sim, to simulate the effect of radar beams, run the AI the digital enemies, and model the flight of the simulated aircraft, and all of this real-time. And it runs on commonly available desktop PC's, sure good "Gamer" grade ones, but still common civilian equipment. And the reason to point this out is how little compute power military systems need. Its not unreasonable, IMO, to guess that all the systems of a T-14 could, in academic theory, be run off the compute power of a late model iPhone. The big challenge with these systems is getting them absolutely bug free, crash free, and hardening the electronics to prevent failure. The actual compute demands are quite low compared to civilian computer systems. Remember calculating ballistics is a very exact math operation, and something a man can do on a napkin. So even the slowest can computers can manage it real time. People have managed tracking software on Raspberry Pi's and the like. And the rather dated systems in an M1A2 Abrams has less compute power than a Nintendo GameCube. They are absolutely still good enough to do the job otherwise they would be long since replaced, but its not like they have super computers. Honestly the REAL cost of a tank is the raw steel that goes into it, and the heavy manufacturing to build it. And I think even for Russia, crew is more valuable than equipment. After all crew skill makes all the difference. Consider the incredible success of the American Abram's in Iraq, and then the Saudi's absolutely dismal losses in Yemen using export Abrams.

[@SilentButDudley]

It’s a tall vehicle though. It’s tall and heavy lol.

[@warthoggoulags1679]

it would have been a good idea if they didn't invade ukraine, that tank would have been way better for small conflicts or foreign operation instead of convetional war (it would be great in conventional too if they had enough of them wich clearly isn't the case and we don't even know how it realy performs)

[@kannonfodder4198]

12:35 - The SLA 16 was the first X layout engine to be used in tanks, however it was not the first X layout engine , that being designed by Henry Ford. You cannot realisticly make an argument that the A85 is a copy of a WW2 engine when the only thing they really have in common is the type, they are both an X layout. It would be the same as saying that the Abrams copied the german BMW GT101 engine from WW2 as that was the first gas turbine engine used on tanks , which would also be a very unrealistic statement, again the only similarly between the 2 being the type.

[@Clonk93]

The only experience that russia has with this type of engine comes from german prototypes from ww ii that never worked. From the available pictures you can clearly see a lot of similarities between the german ww ii engine and the engine from the t14. Only a fool would think that russia of all places would be able to make a concept work that up to today noone in the world could make sufficiantly reliable.

[@LeonmitchelliGalette]

Seems they took their "facts" from same Lazerpig sources. Video clearly biased. They really want undermine own reputation by such cheap moves lately.

[@Clonk93]

@@LeonmitchelliGalette haha yeah keep believing that russia came out with an x layout engine by themselfes :D

[@john-doe]

Concept of crewless turret is actually quite valid - especially with advances in electronics. For instance - T-55 tank turret weights 9.2 tons while whole tank weight is 36.5 tons. That's already 25% of whole tank weight, which could be used on other parts of tank. Dunno about T-14 Armata specs , however I think it might be more durable then people actually think.

[@OwlsStudio]

No, not at all. The crew must be in the tower and among them there must be a black guy throwing new shells into the barrel.

[@raketny_hvost]

​@@OwlsStudio lel

[@OwlsStudio]

@@Tanks-In-Space 🤮

[@dmirus3525]

@@Tanks-In-Space ....and he was a woman before

[@cherrypoptart2001]

the crew is protected in an 800mm rha equivalent thick armored capsole. The front of the hull is said to be 1500mm of protection vs chemical and 900mm of protection vs kinetic threats. I cant remember seeing any details about the turret, side and rear armor of the hull nor the engine deck. But the AFGHANIT aps is said to be able to stop kinetic projectiles travelling at 1800meters per second . Malachit ERA is said to be twice as effective as Relikt ERA that the T-90M, T-80bvm and T-72b3s uses.

[@Zombie-fb5zf]

One of the best tank chats in ages Willey is by far the best please take note Tank museum he paints the picture of knowledge so much better than any of your other narrators.

[@darthbuzz1]

I no understand. You no speaky Engrish.

[@pipecuu]

Chris is also a really good narrator, and I like his voice better than Willey's. Still, I think both are excellent.

[@gosshawk]

except for the blatantly false parts, for example saying its a copy of a German wartime engine which is simply not true

[@bikechainmic]

Will be interested to see the first T14 at Bovington!

[@roadsweeper1]

Along with the ukranian tractor that towed it there 😂

[@LexlutherVII]

That's if it cab defeat the Ukrainian Tractors 🚜

[@hexo4yxa571]

I think Challenger will appear in Kubinka much earlier. We’re waiting ! 🥂

[@tomk3732]

I think we see first Abrams at Kubianka museum. It is coming.

[@-Zevin-]

@@tomk3732 Challenger too, and the captured Leopard tanks lined up next to German WW2 tanks..

[@mraizat3278]

Love how he put a miniature figure of t-14 beside him on an old soviet KV-1 😁👌 *Thanks for the correction guys.😆👌🏼👍

[@PrivatePAuLa29a]

i am about 95% sure that is a KV1. But either way it is indeed a nice idea

[@chrisconolly4256]

I think it is a KV 1 tank.

[@KentuckyAk101guy]

That’s a KV1

[@mraizat3278]

Thanks for the corrections guys, much appreciated. 👌👍

[@thewomble1509]

KV1.

[@SlashHarkenUltra]

6:32 As a joke, I thought of the crew being restricted to midgets to allow for a greater number of people, but then it actually came up in the video.

[@ivankarcha4935]

Soviet army was army of conscripts. And you can't choose where do you want to serv. They were getting bunch of young man in a room. And officer choosing where to send them. Most people I know, who served in tank unit around 150-160cm high or something like 5'

[@wintersbattleofbands1144]

Due to poor nutrition, the average North Korean man is now 5'3". They could recruit them.

[@andyphilpotts4636]

I appreciate the background information on the history of the T-XX tanks, this was about a lot more than just the T-14, and served as a fine education about what is likely to be rumbling around in Ukrainian fields right now

[@SDZ675]

The T-14 got promoted to a T-34. Saw one in the last Moscow parade.

[@Dargesh890]

I love how they only had a SINGLE t-34-85 for the tank section

[@APrairieDog]

@@Dargesh890 yknow they do that with every victory parade?

[@correctionguy7632]

@@APrairieDog No they dont. This is the first time they only brought a single tank to the [moscow] victory parade, they were usually accompanied by another 30-50 tanks.

[@joek600]

@@correctionguy7632 from what I heard there was a public backlash last year about having tanks parading instead of being in battle. It’s all PR anyone who really thinks that Russia doesn’t have tanks must be medicated

[@correctionguy7632]

@@joek600 No one is seriously suggesting Russia doesnt have any tanks. For the moscow parade their options were to do what they did, pull tanks from the front or cancel the parade in its entirety. IMO the best option would have been the last one but they were all lose-lose situations in their own way.

[@jeffdayman8183]

Great video! A unique insight into the vehicle being discussed but also the current Russian battlefield situation and tank build / supply situation.

[@Conserpov]

Do you also still believe in Saddam's WMD? 🤣

[@christians6734]

Thank you, very good summary. New to me was the length of the APFSDS penetrator. I had understood that in previous tanks the ammunition was two-parted, thus limiting the length of the penetrator and thus it's effectiveness

[@InkandFish555]

Two part ammunition doesn't limit the length of the penetrator, it can potentially allow for a longer penetrator. The size of the ammunition storage and handling infrastructure limits the length of the penetrator.

[@cherrypoptart2001]

yeah vaccum 1 is 900mm and vaccum 2 is 1000mm, there was rumors than the 152mm gun that was canceled could of fired a projectile twice as powerful as the 125mm thats on the t14

[@ivicamilosavljevic4706]

That amount of force doesn't even have to penetrate... Or will separate the turret, or roll over another tank...

[@herptek]

​​​@@InkandFish555 In trusty, old-school designs like a few of those common in the west one limiting factor is also the weight of the ammunition, as anything very much heavier than a standard 120mm round gets difficult for one loader to handle manually. Having heavier ammunition be two-part could have other potential advantages besides space saving in an automatic turret such as the one in this fancy parade vehicle.

[@danb4900]

2:15 Centurion? Yeah Centurion Mark 3 was fitted with a twin plane Stabiliation system in 1948 I believe. I think that the Russians started fitting twin plane stabilizers in the mid 50s, T55, etc. He said first twin stabilized tank GUN, unless he is perhaps referring to a behind the scenes thing before that that didnt enter service until later. "In 1948, the British Centurion Mk. 3 featured the first two-plane stabilization system in a production tank, while 1954 saw the introduction of the STP-1 stabilizer complex for the T-54A, and similar systems would be implemented on virtually all Soviet tanks from then on."

[@adamc2378]

Aside from the lack of numbers, any western tanker can tell you about the lack of situational/terrain awareness from having all the crew down in the hull.

[@Masada1911]

I can’t really imagine that the Russians have made adequate sensors to replace the crew in the turret. They might have though.

[@roadsweeper1]

​@Masada1911 prime targets for snipers though. Hit all the cameras and the tank is mission killed.

[@trololoev]

​@@Masada1911 you don't look out of tank by yourself like in ww2. You look through sensors. Not forget that armata can be remotely controlled.

[@TaylorLiam87]

​@trololoev no you look through periscope viewing ports...

[@Masada1911]

@@trololoev most western tanker commanders will be looking out the turret.

[@jtbrown739]

So much great information here. Even the brief discussion of the size requirements of the previous tanks has relevance on what is happening on the battlefield that no one mentions. It isn't easy to find 5'3" tankers today. Tanks for the great video!

[@tranquilthoughts7233]

No worries about that in russia. Malnutrition will keep children from growing too tall.

[@cartrips9263]

Not every country pumps their citizens full of hormones like the USA. The transformations of even girls to women I saw in the USA literally scared me.

[@Anuj-1]

@@tranquilthoughts7233 Their average height is around 5'10"

[@billynomates920]

😁

[@user-rk5cu5tg2g]

@@Anuj-1 and that's including the Asiatic regions of Russia. Slavs are generally taller than other Europeans.

[@michaelhowell2326]

I had the opportunity to try and get in a T-72 once. I'm 6-2 and it was the same as impossible.

[@saucyinnit8799]

By Soviet standards you would probably be prohibited from joining the military. 6-2 in the USSR was like 7-0 in America right now.

[@ivankarcha4935]

​@@saucyinnit8799 that's B.s. where did you get that info?

[@saucyinnit8799]

@@ivankarcha4935 the soviets were short. And i doubt he can be anything except a regular infantryman. I don't think there is a Soviet vehicle that can handle someone that tall.

[@ivankarcha4935]

@@saucyinnit8799 most bmp btr can fit 2m tall guys. It's just uncomfortable in general. VDV(airborne units usually tall, big guys)

[@ray.shoesmith]

I'm 6'4", and after trying to fit into the commanders hatch of a T-72 I'm convinced that all Soviet tankers were 5' or shorter 😳

[@AuntJoey]

Auto-loaders make a lot of sense when you consider Soviet crew training.

[@KapitanPisoar1]

The best tank the World has never seen... :D

[@blobbem]

Really does seem like a tank that will only ever exist as a prototype. That corruption really held back production on this thing, not to mention the difficulties of obtaining parts for it due to sanctions.

[@trololoev]

Russia produce t-90m right now, because there is no target that need t-14. T-90m in enough.

[@blobbem]

@@trololoev A lot of fourth generation tanks are just third generation with upgrades, so yeah, the T-90m is serviceable for Russia currently. That said, unless Russia can fix its internal corruption problems and figure out a way to obtain parts like chips, they'll eventually be outclassed once actual fourth generation tanks are being produced by other nations.

[@fij715]

@@blobbem The soviet Union had way more corruption than Russia today has and they produced a hundred tanks per day at the end of ww2.

[@tomk3732]

Not really. They are heavily used in tank schools right now. Plenty of videos.

[@blobbem]

@@tomk3732 We don't know the exact numbers of how many T-14s are out there, but judging by what we have seen, there doesn't seem to be a lot of them around. This isn't much of an issue itself as they aren't needed in significant numbers... yet. The problem Russia has is the likely outcome of not being able to produce many of them when the time comes, unlike other nations with their own fourth generation MBTs. It's also worth noting how hard it is to gauge anything about the T-14 because of all the damn propaganda surrounding it.

[@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76]

I wish them great success in deploying it. Then I want to see the farmers steal all of them. That will never get old

[@dsfs17987]

I bet Ukrainian farmers are studying those t-14 armata videos on how to better convert and utilize them after capturing

[@hughsmith2657]

It's good advertising for JOHN DEERE to

[@MelioraCogito]

@@hughsmith2657 *Zetor Tractors* is the most popular tractor brand in Ukraine.

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

LMAO!

[@Lonewolfmike]

The Ukrainian military Farm Division will have lots of fun pulling them home. And then NATO will look into it and start laughing their heads off seeing how far behind Russian design is and how they screwed up so much of the design.

[@Reepicheep-1]

Love the history lesson before the analysis & speculation!

[@jackburton9035]

I’m confused by the 2 plane stabiliser point. I was under the impression that the cent 3 in 48 and British prototypes before were the first to feature 2 plane stabilisers.

[@watcherzero5256]

Yes British in 48, Soviets in 54 then the US not until 1972 (Bar the Sheridan light tank in 67).

[@williamzk9083]

The Germans used large gyros (as opposed to small gyros) to stabilize the gun of some Panzer III 37mm and 50mm models used in North Africa. Large gyros means the 6 inch and 8 inch gyro directly mechanically stabilizes the gun. The Sherman used small gyros where a sensor (in this case electrical switch contacts called silverstats) actuates a hydraulic valve to drive the gun and is mechanically linked sight back into position. These were elevation (ie pitch) only and a little crude as the control was only 'on-off i.e. bang bang control and the sight was linked to the gun and so not entirely steady. -The German interleaved torsion bar suspension system with its long travel, shock absorbers (absent on many tanks), multiple large diameter contact points was among other things intended to assist in fire on the move. Tiger tanks and Panthers moving at speed over ground do appear to be quite smooth. -German plans at the end of the war was for Tiger II and Panther Ausf F to receive stabilized optics, something which can be done very well and easily as opposed to driving the whole gun. The gun wasn't stabilized but the optics was so the gunner could get an accurate lay on the target. The gun was then fired electronically when it lined up with the sights taking into account crossing speed and and firing time. This is naval gun practice. -The Panzer IV used an electrical Travers, I think DC ward Leonard system. It would have been easy to feed the output of a rate gyros into the field of the ward leonard generator to speed null the turret. Using a stablised optics would have taken care of elevation. The Panther and Tiger had hydralic traverse. In that case the Germans would have used reversible variable displacement swash plate servo pumps with a small piloted motor adjusting swash-plate pitch. Again Naval practice of the day and also used in some of the larger German FLAK guns.

[@jackburton9035]

@@williamzk9083 all that writing and you missed the point. 2 plane stabiliser.

[@williamzk9083]

@@jackburton9035 I refereed to 2 plane stabilizers at the end. These early stabilizer systems did not stabilize the optics separately and hence were still limited.

[@watcherzero5256]

@@williamzk9083 There were single plane stabilisation earlier, that is they only stabilised vertical or horizontal movement not both simultaneously. Optical stabilisation is also completely different and many tanks had a system where the commander could digitally designate a target for the gunner to acquire. The Germans used the large motors for quick traverse and the smaller motors for fine movement aiming, of course by the end of the war they had totally ditched electric turret traverse due to lack of materials.

[@jonathanryan5860]

Thank you, as I have come to expect. Unbiased, accurate histories, and developmental details, start to make sense of the confused information coming out of a complex, and confused, conflict. Knowledge lifts the fog of war. Thank you.

[@orbitalair2103]

its accurate until his conclusions. the defense ministries west bias shows as they still underrates their production and transport capabilities. 'hardpressed russian army'? they are winning. and who throws 10 dev platform tanks into full scale battle? no one.

[@57thorns]

@@orbitalair2103 It is pretty obvious Russia can't themselves produce what they imported before the invasion. So the Armata is utterly irrelevant. Of course, you definition of "winning" is not quite the accepted one in the English language.

[@MrIluvbutts]

​@@orbitalair2103 igor cope

[@alinalexandru2466]

@@orbitalair2103 "winning"? The same way the Nazis were "winning" in 1944 I presume?

[@BlutoandCo]

​@@orbitalair2103 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@TheArklyte]

Neither? It's just happens to be the in the same situation as if Germany in April 1945 showcased a "revolutionary" tank design with gas turbine, electric transmission, stabilized squeezebore gun with autoloader, quad tracks on independent interleaved suspension, a rail mounted on top of the gun to launch guided missile, remote controlled autocannon on top of the turret and full set of night vision equipment for all crew members. And then told that it's being accepted into the service, that they plan to produce 10000 of them and that Steiner would arrive with them any second😅 It's a glorified concept/show car ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[@harmen2456]

All built around a 19th century steam engine. If we want to keep the years about right for this comparison.

[@Reewen]

Der Angriff Steiner ist nicht erfolgt 😔

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@harmen2456How, it's engine was made in the 90s?

[@harmen2456]

@@voidtempering8700 The very same way the t72/t80 use upgraded versions of an engine designed in 1931 despite being built much later. Basically they got a bunch of porche tiger engines during ww2, decided to build on that and convert them for oil pumping and the like and then, for reasons best left to vodka and cocaine, they put that into the t14. But hey, at least they're not using iterations of the t34 engine anymore!

[@gordonamos7365]

@@harmen2456 Watch redeffect, Lazerpig has no idea what hes talking about.

[@MaDaFaKaSsS]

Really important to quote British Defense Officials that have in the past given us enlightening revelations about Russian shovels and the always impending depletion of Russian missiles and ammunition.

[@CremeDeLaMeme.]

😂💯

[@rubenskiii]

And how is their supply situation going then? Seems they are doing a great job of building interbellum style defenses, including dragons tooth and then still losing their ground…

[@MeowMeow6118a]

@@rubenskiii its 7 months now, they never went passed the dragon tooths.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

Agreed.

[@glifencible]

I heard it takes 5 Shermans to take out a T-14.

[@ToEuropa]

Or 1 top-attack missile.

[@tomasg4623]

5 Abrams*

[@trololoev]

​@@ToEuropa in Syria old tank received 2-5 hit from atgm and survived, so 1 missle if this not cruise missle probably not enough. Maximum it destroy engine.

[@rick7424]

​@@trololoev During the Gulf War it certainly did not. Neither did it in Ukraine

[@MaD0MaT]

Nah one would suffice. Literally one. Effing. Sherman. Turret is so badly armored that you can knock out sights using infantry weapons. So yeah one would be more than enough.

01:23 Should it not be T-43 instead of T-44 ? Because the T-34 continued production instead of the T-43 beeing tested against it. The T-44 only came into beeing in 1944 as a prototype and from 1945 in production, but after the war had ended. As far as I recall.And then of course it was a radical departure from Soviet tank liniage so far.

[@BadMuflon]

Yeah it should have been but the t43s 20mms of increased frontal armor wasnt enough to cope with the German 88 and it wasnt as fast as the t34 so the Soviets decided to cancel the t43 project and went to upgrade the t34s with the 85mm gun so they used the upgraded t34-85s rather then producing a whole new tank.The t44 was built in the last years of the war with ~150 tanks but it never saw combat in ww2. It basically was a prototype for the t55...

[@comrade-princesscelestia4907]

T-44 came out in 1943 My bad actually, it started design in 43 and first prototype was January '44. I was just surprised how many were made by 1945 if it entered production in mid '44

[@AlexConnor_]

Three planned replacements for the T-34, T-44 was the first to make it into production. T-34M had heavier frontal armor and a new suspension, almost completely new hull, however the 76mm gun was unchanged and the project did not offer much real improvement. Killed off when Germany launched Operation Barbarossa. Then the T-43 was a T-34 with more space efficient torsion bar suspension, heavier frontal armor and a new 3 man turret but still keeping the 76mm gun. Again, not worth interrupting T-34 production for a relatively small upgrade, however the new turret was adapted to take an 85mm gun and fitted to the T-34 hull which created the highly successful T-34/85. And then the T-44 was developed further from the T-43, switched to a transverse engine layout which saved a lot of hull space allowing a much lower profile with even better frontal armor. T-44 shares a lot of parts with the T-34 including roadwheels, tracks, engine and the 3 man 85mm turret. Limited production of about 2000 units but teething troubles meant that 3 brigades equipped with T-44 during 1944 were switched back to T-34/85 before seeing combat. T-44 still had the 85mm gun and didn't offer a huge combat upgrade over the T-34/85 so the design only really took off when the slightly larger T-44/100 was put into production as the T-54

[@mikkirurk1]

This is the best video ever!!! It's about a tank that doesn't exist from a state that won't exist soon.

[@albertwolanski7688]

So you are saying that Russians are in need of more washer and/or dryer components?

[@redpill6201]

I expect China could help them there. But they really need to make their own.

[@baneofbanes]

@@redpill6201Russia doesn’t possess the capabilities to do so.

[@redpill6201]

@@baneofbanes Then they should try harder! Like China is doing. Look at the mess we all got into relying too much on Taiwanese chips. Cars couldn't be built.

[@baneofbanes]

@@redpill6201 easier said than done.

[@redpill6201]

​@@baneofbanes Where there is a will, there is a way. China is doing way better than the West expected in developing advanced tech. In the mid-80s the West slapped Japan down through a rate of exchange attack. They might try that again, but it might not work a 2nd time.

[@comradepickles7607]

I love tanks and I would love to work at The Tank Museum even if I only were allowed to sweep the floor.

[@_ArsNova]

Appreciate the serious discussion of Russian tanks. Crediting them where its due, and not getting mired down in current-day politics and propaganda.

[@raideurng2508]

Considering everything we know about the vehicle is absolutely bathed in russian propaganda, that's not an easy feat.

[@stripedassape8148]

"This tank chat is going to be about the T14" Proceeds to talk about every other tank ever made for half the video😅 ❤

[@vaultsuit]

Hard to talk about vapor ware for 20 unless you're LazerPig 😂

[@RedTail1-1]

This video was about every tank except the T-14...

[@Havok0159]

Oh yeah! A turret spin clip within the first minute. I was hoping for one the moment the video started and it didn't take long for you guys to deliver.

[@emperror85]

And a tank with fully elevated gun, mandatory!

[@bingvarstand47]

Thank you for a wonderful and informative video!

[@FlyWithMe_666]

16:50 “The T-72 remain effective against American, German and French counterparts”. And if you put a double cope cage on it, it’s virtually invincible.

[@jungletroll3844]

Thats some god tier cope from the Russians right thier 😅

[@SRDPS2]

what about + ERA on it, probably beyond humanity (actually T-55 with double cape and T-72 ERA cape is real)

[@joeblack1052]

“Western analysts remain skeptical” Ain’t that a surprise😅

[@just-a-purple-ork]

Eh, other than upgrading it's nuclear arsenal (which does actually seem to be good, though spending as much money as they did on tactical nuclear weapons that they're basically never going to use unless they're also going to go full on WW3 with strategic nukes was definitely wasteful given their budget), post soviet Russian kit basically just exists to fuel "Russia stronk" memes rather than like, actually intended to make useful amounts of production models

[@joeblack1052]

@@just-a-purple-ork weird, how do you know the nuclear arsenal is good? It has never been used. Conventional Russian equipment is used around the world and seems to generally work well in battlefield conditions. There are some things that don’t, just as in the current conflict some western kit didn’t work as expected.

[@just-a-purple-ork]

@@joeblack1052 Correction, conventional soviet equipment is used around the world. There isn't nearly as much actual new stuff developed by the russian federation being sold (and no i don't include upgrade packages for soviet era tanks to be something new given they've been using the same engine since ww2). As for things working as expected, I don't know why you'd expect the mainstream press, or even large swathes of alternative media for that matter, to actually know what they're talking about. Especially given how many 'experts' thought the Russian army was the second best in the world. As for the bit about the nuclear arsenal, tldr, going by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists report (which seems to be the main source that gets cited for these sorts of things), Russia is actively trying (and has mostly succeeded according to the russia MoD lol) to replace their soviet era nuclear arsenal, something which there is not even an attempt to do so for their conventional forces. Also, and this is important, just because the nukes haven't been used doesn't mean the delivery system hasn't (Iskander missiles can load nuclear weapons for example). You can use nuclear capable missiles to fire conventional explosives. As for the nukes themselves, its pretty safe to assume they work, or at least not safe to assume they don't.

[@joeblack1052]

@@just-a-purple-ork Soviet/Russian same thing, Russia made up bulk of USSR as it was formed from the Russian empire. USSR just had advantage in terms of manpower and production, but modern Russia doesn’t have some of the issues of a communist state. A lot of the newer post Soviet tech is actually the best equipment.

[@just-a-purple-ork]

@@joeblack1052 It was the heart of the decision making for sure, but the trade offs modern russia has for not having the soviet's issues still leaves them significantly worse off. And their current government has its own issues, namely that fascists will always choose the option that keeps them in power, even if it means crippling their nation. Nevermind stuff like how a lot of soviet systems weren't even produced in russia in the first place, or their space program being in kazakhstan. Also, can you list some examples? Like for nuclear delivery systems (stuff like the aforementioned Iskander missiles are lumped here) I'd definitely agree. But for other stuff, I generally hear that they're basically either eternal protoypes to show off, they aren't actually that good, or their production runs are simply too small to actually be useful.

[@molovichstorch6398]

The concept of the « Armata » series is similar to the Ww2 E series. One thing that attract my attention is the track width. It is much less wider than their previous tanks. Also, the troublesome engine of the Armata, the weakness of the Russian economy to sustain such expensive programs and the lack of an advanced electronic component industry make a sustain production problematic. However, the modern components are here (a special vision display helmet linked to the cameras would be better than flat screens). Now, it will be a test of complexity and cost versus simplicity and ease of production. This new tank is not for a conscript army, unless they have yearly recall periods (French and Char B1!).

[@lelandgrubson2736]

Finally someone who is a tank nerd in this sea of memes

[@marcm.]

One miss-statement is that Russia is the greatest tank producing nation, we keep on forgetting that that was the Soviet Union, and the Russian federation is not the Soviet Union. For one, they are missing the Ukrainians, who were part of that massive industrial state. And many of the other ex Soviet States also contributed mightly to that industrial base. It would be just as accurate for me to say that the Ukrainians created the second most powerful Navy of second half of the 20th century. Given that almost all of the major surface ship combatants were made in Ukrainian territory, mostly with Ukrainian industry, it would be just as accurate. But the reality is that Ukraine could never create such a massive or capable Navy, neither can the Russian federation. Nor can Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania all of which contributed to that capability. The Soviet Union created that mass of tanks, not the Russian federation and the Russian federation never could and never will be able to equal that capability

[@andreisouzabento7506]

​@marcm. Only Ukraine and Russia has the capacity to produce tanks, look all other Eastern states, their tanks needed to be mordenized by foreign companies..

[@history6977]

@M Berg Today, the elite of NATO armored vehicles is powerless on the Ukrainian front, against the Russian (rubbish) 😁

[@ulrichkalber9039]

I think the T14 has a really innovative design. If everything works as intended that is. The many problems that it has make it unlikely to succeed. -the engine must be reliable. If i understand it correctly it was reliable in stationary use like running generators, using it on the move is a completely different thing. -the autoloader must be made reliable. in a T72 the gunner can reach any part of the autoloader and there are few problems he cannot fix with a hammer, a can of oil and a "SUKA BLYAT". In a T14 there is no way to reach the autoloader but to get out and access it from the top, unprotected, under enemy fire. -as mentioned the electronic parts are made out of unobtainium. I believe that the engine controlling sensors might be needed to reach acceptable reliability of the engine, if they cannot be obtained engine reliability might be unreachable. I suspect that a fully automatic autoloader might also need electronics to function. -Training, if the claim is true the T14 that "broke down" before a parade just had the parking brake engaged, and the driver tried to start it without releasing the parking brake. To run such a sophisticated system you need better trained crews. "contract soldiers" rather than conscripts, but the russians want to increase the percentage of professionals in their army anyway. ... All of this is also overshadowed by the one big question: can we believe any of the claims about the T14 ?

[@artnull13]

Answer is no Ruzzia always overhypes it’s capabilities

[@SRDPS2]

You said it Parade Brake Can believe claim? Now I fking wonder what inside propeller make fire range go 12km (they referenced M1 have 3km)

[@ulrichkalber9039]

@@SRDPS2 the 12 Km is realistic for indirect fire(as artillery) the 3000 is direct fire. seems someone deliberately mixed up the numbers to make things sound more impressive.

[@SRDPS2]

@@ulrichkalber9039 well, in official AD btw bruh

[@ulrichkalber9039]

@@SRDPS2 also 3000 for Abrams is effective range, 13000 for t14 is probably absolute range.

[@maringarvanovic8011]

As usual a wonderful "chat" and David you always come across as so knowledgeable and a joy to listen to. Why is it that most footage of this tank seems to show it spinning its turret?. Has anyone seen those hard kill tubes working?. I cannot see how they cover the tank and work. Trophy looks like it is the right place but this does not.

[@cookiecraze1310]

While the sourcing for this is dubious, according to the Chinese media the APS detection system doesn't actually work. Russia tried to sell it to China but the detection system requires the crew to sight the missile first. Its soft kill systems are also just smoke.

[@Anzdsfsdgldfmxv22]

If anyone thinks that the production of tanks in the USSR was a mess, you have no idea what was going on in the navy, where each shipyard tried to produce not just one, but a whole series of ships, so that its director had more independence and influence in the party hierarchy.

[@Yardbird68]

Excellent presentation; as usual. I would sum up the T-14 capabilities, with the repeated phrase, "According to them ( russia )". That says it all; the masters of OVER HYPE!! And tooting your own horn.

[@manichaean1888]

Spot on! Russia has overhyped Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1945.

[@Yardbird68]

@@manichaean1888 Damn straight. I am sure if you read "their" take on the history of 1812 and 1941 - 45 ( Don't forget, THEY were allies in 1939'40 ) They will say talk about about how Napoleon and Hitler were defeated with the help of the T-14 tank😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

[@manichaean1888]

@@Yardbird68 Oh, so you have your version of history where Napoleon and Hitler were not defeated by Russia? How cute! Anyway, you can always personally try to repeat their "success" instead of writing stupid comments on KZbin.

[@burningphoneix]

Every nation overhypes their own gear. It's nothing exclusive to Russia.

[@Yardbird68]

@@manichaean1888 Oh, so you are telling me you know how to read and understand what I said. Guess again cuddles. Your a REAL bright one. My comment might be stupid. But you were EVEN too stupid to even understand what I wrote. Poor cuddles, we understand.....😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

[@karolrawski410]

The main gun appears to be mounted pretty low and close to the hull. Doesn't that compromise its ability to elevate and depress?

[@ValiantValium]

I'm sure it depresses a lot of T-14 tank crews. Should the turret blow off, I'm sure it will elevate them as well.

[@supa3ek]

Only if you play world of tanks or warthunder, nerd !!!!

[@karolrawski410]

@@ValiantValium For the purpose of shooting the turret beyond the stratosphere they put all these rocket launchers around the turret ring. Unfortunately, this will be an unmanned flight, because all the crew is in the hull.

[@DEADMANRIDING1]

Suspension can be adjusted to suit firing position, squat down to conceal or raise as reqd.

[@bigblue6917]

As it is heavily dependant on vital imports it is highly unlikely the T-14 will ever be produced beyond the trials version we see today. This is partially because of sanctions and partly because it will be years before Russia could afford to build such tanks.

[@orbitalair2103]

you do know who is profiting from high gasoline prices dont you? russia. sanctions backfired. and the sauds are joining BRICS. what else might they import? computer chips? tiawan will sell to the highest bidder, tiawan is all about money. especially after the USA said we would blow them up in any conflict no matter what. you dont 'save' your friends by blowing them up. China-Asia-Russia is ascending as we tighten the noose on our own necks. They dont need armatas, Klaus and the WEF will kill the west, its almost done.

[@trololoev]

Russia produce more tanks that all nato combined, are you joking?

[@lewisbenzie845]

Lol

[@Clonk93]

Russia is currently not producing any new tanks. They are merely 'upgrading' units they took out of storage. Don't believe russian propaganda.

[@MothaLuva]

@@trololoev Let them stupids believe that if they want. Makes just for a more violent awakening.

[@pcka12]

It is a shame that the Tank Museum hasn't yet 'captured' a T14 Armata for scientific study!

[@nerdfatha]

Until it is seen in action, the T-14 has all the legitimacy of the Ghana Iron Man suits.

[@ZGryphon]

It's the Keyser Söze of tanks. Nobody knows what it is or even for sure if it's real, but they hear it's pretty scary.

[@DixxyV]

It's the best tank mankind has ever seen...for parading, that is.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

It actually broke down during its first parade...

[@wyringen]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Eventually they will get it right. Parades are top priority. 😂

[@dyddsko]

Keep believing that kid

[@KY-qx9ip]

So basically a T34-85

[@wyringen]

@@dyddsko I will, Russia it easy to.

[@x201t]

Very good video and easy to follow. Even for me as a native German speaker.

[@mnijhoff]

For some reason the T-14 always reminds me of a full-scale G.I.Joe's Mobat.

[@alexeyl22]

they share the same purpose - to shoot propaganda movies 😂

[@SRDPS2]

Mobat Bruh are they really scarp blow out panel 💀

[@TheBestDog]

*COBRA!* 🐍

[@TheBestDog]

*G.I. Joe: Iraq-Afghanistan Vet Edition* _Includes PTSD Diagnosis + Handgun_ 10%* of sales go to war vets *up to a maximum of $1,000 per annum

[@LethalJizzle]

The T14 is the world's most advanced tank, according to people who also believed the Moskva was untouchable and the Kinzhal was unstoppable. Therefore it could probably get knocked out by a PIAT.

[@andi-jn2zg]

Kinzhal is unstoppable and the T14 is the Worlds most advanced tank

[@andi-jn2zg]

@@apis_aculei no humour... But facts

[@patrickcotter5629]

@@andi-jn2zg 🤣🤣 Never laughed so hard.

[@andi-jn2zg]

@@patrickcotter5629dude your clearly know nothing about the Kinzhal or T14 Armata. dude there's footage of Kinzhal hitting Patriot after patriot fired 30 missiles in Vain trying to intercepted Kinzhal. T14 Armata has 3 times the Strike range of any Western tank at 12km using sprinter anti tank missiles. T14 world's 1st tank with AI, It can detect, classify, track and engage enemy tanks without human intervention, 100 times faster than a human tank crew. T14 Worlds 1st stealth tank with reduced radar and IR Signatures. The T14 has a 100km detection range using a modified fighter jet AESA radar for look 1st, shoot 1st capability. The maths is simple... Any enemy tank would have to enter at least 8km deep into the T14s killzone just to take aim at Armata... Long before an enemy tank got anywhere close, T14 would have automatically detected and destroyed it. T14 has built in APS system and EW jamming capability. T14 can be used as a ground based ISR platform to designate and distribute target information. T14 can call in strikes from larger calibre anti tank missiles such as the Supersonic 100km range Hermes guided weapon system. Dude you clearly know nothing about the T14s capabilities. You can't name any western tank that can match T14s Capabilities. Carry on Laughing.

[@andi-jn2zg]

British military intelligence admits T14 a Revolution in Tank Building... Let's get real... They sure as hell know better than all the armchair generals on this thread.

[@edwardkenworthy7013]

The idea of building a platform is sensible, as long as the envisaged vehicles are all similar: as with the CVRT (Scimitar, Scorpion, Saracen and Stormer) line. But surely, as an example, the heavy armour a MBT like the T-14 needs would ludicrous overkill for an APC/IFV.

[@ddshiranui]

I'd say that probably depends on envisioned mission profile and environment? In urban combat, for example, I could see protection prioritized over mobility even for this class of vehicle. Let's not forget, the IDF also developed an APC version of the Merkava tank to shuttle troops in and out of the occupied territories. Perhaps as with the BMPT, this kind of thinking might originate from Soviet experience in Afghanistan, where less protected IFVs were at constant risk of being taken out in ambushes.

[@Sam_Guevenne]

@@ddshiranui The namer was an after thought built with leftovers.

[@ddshiranui]

@@Sam_Guevenne The IDF has been doing this since the 90s when they converted Centurions into Nagmashots, and then T-55s into Achzarits. The Namer is a continuation of what by now can arguably be called a tradition.

[@trolleriffic]

@@ddshiranui Israeli doctrine and tactics for armoured warfare also seem quite specific to their needs and circumstances, hence the unique design of the Merkava. Other nations haven't copied it but they use their tanks differently.

[@ddshiranui]

@@trolleriffic I think that's because most armies' doctrine is based on maneuver warfare, where traditional IFVs are way more mobile. However, in urban combat, wouldn't armored protection be more important? This may be a gap in most militaries just because we do not really seem to anticipate the need for months-long city fighting. The last time western armies had to deal with that was WW2.

[@pinecone1208]

Personally i believe the primary reason for the downsizing of T-14 production and increase in T-90 production and T-72 upgrading is that the russians realise that the first casualty of high-tech war, is high-tech war itself. the t-90, t80 and t-72 have proven to be more than effective, and theres not yet any point to use the t-14.

[@Nick-rs5if]

It's probably a big cost and procurement, along with a logistical factor in play as well. Russia would likely have had to dismantle at least part of their existing T-90 production lines, along with the T-80/T-72 upgrade facilities in order to free up a sizeable enough capable workforce, and to create new facilities for housing the would-be T-14 assembly lines. Not to mention all the spare parts and extra components that likewise have had to be produced and shipped to the front lines, an ordeal that Russia is already having some serious problems with in their existing tank fleet. Russia would, in this case, have also had to produced the tools necessary to create the machinery necessary for producing the T-14 en-masse, along with all the components needed to repair and re-field damaged units. This is likewise something Russia is having quite serious problems with in their existing tank fleet. EDIT: I don't think switching over to the T-14 in the middle of a war is a sound tactical move on the part of the Kremlin. Doing so doesn't make any logical sense to me.

[@pinecone1208]

@@Nick-rs5if Exactly, theres no reason to switch at this point in time, and doing so would waste resources that are much better used elsewhere. A single t-14 costs about the same to make as about 250 lancets, and one is far better proven at making short work of western equipment.

[@daniel_f4050]

Having no access to the gun from inside the tank just feels like a bad idea. Stupid little things can happen that might prevent the gun from functioning. In a normal turret you can see, and reach, most of the working bits of the main gun. And a little percussive maintenance might solve the issue in moments. With no internal access the T-14 would have to return to a maintenance depot for even the smallest issue. Because I really can’t imagine the crew stopping the tank, hopping out, removing armor panels, and then digging around while being fully exposed to everything.

[@Beery1962]

They didn't say there was no internal access. They merely said the crew compartment is separate and specially armored. The biggest advantage Russian tanks have always had is that they are built to be easily serviced. I very much doubt that the gun systems would be entirely unreachable by the crew - that's just not how Russians build tanks.

[@janveit2226]

Very good video. It is very hard to do evaluation from press releases and expert guessing. Till they are deployed in a real combat, we will not know. And the tank itself, no matter how good it is, may not make a difference in combat at all. Today's battlefield is a very complex environment, so improper use can totally negate advantages in technology (if all claims are actually true).

[@forrestpenrod2294]

Ukraine has committed its limited supply of Western tanks to the battlefield while Russia deploys the dregs of its junkyards. The time to deploy T-14s has come and gone many, many times throughout this war and yet they're held back like no other single weapons system. This suggests they're crap tanks or the Russian leadership is not confident enough in them to risk losing given the prestige they represent.

[@shcdemolisher]

@@forrestpenrod2294 Most likely they're crap like so many others.

[@o3tg2w35t]

Has your comment aged well? No. Why? Because you are uninformed. @@forrestpenrod2294

[@dwightchaos9449]

@@forrestpenrod2294 Or they are doing well enough for them, to keep using their old ones?

[@minklmank]

Hmm - no fume extractor, I mean yeah, there is no crew to poison but I can't shake the feeling that filling a space made up of delicate machinery, and sensitive electronics with hot, and most likely pretty corrosive Gases and particles is very much non Bueno on the mid to long term

[@bartholomewdan]

Especially if somehow a hole gets punched in the wall between the turret and the crew compartment. Can't imagine that would be a pleasant way to go.

[@616CC]

I think you’ve misread the reports on the cancellation of production, they cancelled the initial production run in 2018 as they weren’t going to make the 2020 date, they said by 2025 they aim to go into the final stage of development; design, production process etc so as to start mass production of the vehicle, I’ve seen many reports to this but you seem to have given one spokesman more weight that stated they didn’t need a knew tank but that sounded opinionated, I could be wrong of course but I wouldn’t be so sure that we aren’t going to see the platform enter mass production. Forgive me on my English I’m not proofing this comment

[@NephritduGrey]

Not one in the museum...yet. :3 Also I wonder how that tank will look with a cope cage.

[@nurburgringkid]

Cope cage 😂

[@eleveneleven572]

But Russia already has Tiger Panzers on display...

[@ayanamikai]

from how i see it the T-14 is going to have similar fate as T-64 had. very potent and promising innovative design on paper, but in reality so severely plagued by problems growing from its innovations that it just isnt worth the effort, that is until a very similar concept (just like T-72 in its time), much better optimized to be more simple and easy to produce will enter mass production and widespread use, leaving its predecessor to be a museum piece.

[@smekbiggy2670]

every new technology has to be proven on the battlefield first, armata as modular concept is very likely to show good evolutionary capabilities. I would not dare to underestimate it

[@sirex9244]

Yeah just like the abrams x and that new shitty panther.

[@hcf1956]

Yes, but given the “lies” and “misinformation” by the Russians, the “Kinzhal”, Russians highly touted so called ‘Hypersonic’ Kinzhal Missiles is a fugazi. So…yes, but I believe the actual battle field results. Fugazi up the ying-yang. Lies and misinformation. The russians are playing a game of "liars poker". Liars...liars...pants on fire.

[@Bob-Of-Bobs]

​@@sirex9244the KF51 panther came before the Abrams X, the Abrams X is a knockoff of a next-gen tank.

[@tommygun5038]

I don't see the great leap in any tank technology yet. Using them properly seems too increase their survivability more than any new tech.

[@hcf1956]

Like the kinzhal?

[@lnichols1111]

If becomes increasingly clear that it no longer makes sense to put humans inside tanks or armored vehicles when the vehicles can be operated remotely. Drones are the future in the air, in the sea, and on land.

[@jw325]

What happened to their infantry support vehicle the "terminator"? That was supposed to have been a game changer wasnt it.

[@baneofbanes]

Blew up.

[@LondonSteveLee]

What happened to infantry support is what did it for Russia! The vast majority of the professional combat units were destroyed when Putin made the mistake of mobilizing without the conscripts (the dismounted infantry that should be protecting the tanks from ambush) he sent in the bulk of his professional tank commanders, drivers and gunners to their death - they now have very little left in terms of serviceable modern tanks with experienced crews. Even if Russia mobilized fully today - they'd have the grunts but they don't have the professional combat units - you cannot magic those out of thin air in months. His "special operation" approach has already doomed Russia to defeat.

[@ulrichkalber9039]

it seems a rather interesting idea that did not withstand the test of reality. i have seen footage of it firing its autocannons, the barrels vibrate like they are rubber *censored*s i do not think that is effective at all. somebody had a good(or maybe not?) idea and somebody tried to put together the parts without proper RnD behind it. seems to be a waste to build them. or the intention is just propaganda, might be the parallel to the T14...

[@alexkatc59]

What is happening with "terminator"? It is working right now near Kremennaya. Killing nazi, i think.

[@artnull13]

@@alexkatc59 killing ruscist Nazi’s - ah so the story of the Terminator moving down a whole platoon of retreating spetznatz was true then 😂

[@bubblezovlove7213]

Seeing the tank smoking gave me a flashback then.... I was at an airshow once and there was a tank near me who decided, in the middle of a crowd of civilians within touching distance, to make a smoke shield. I have asthma so it was an immediately suffocating cloud i couldnt escape quick enough.... 😮

[@pashapasovski5860]

It's smoking on purpose to deflect infrared !

[@jm9371]

Extremally interesting video. I was wondering about the T-14's relevance in todays world.

[@CheapSushi]

It's super relevant in terms of what crew protection should be like and how information centric it should be. How the crew is, what they see and how they function is what the future should be for a tank. All the other stuff is just general technicities every tank faces.

[@DominicBHaven-qm6nx]

Great video, thank you.

[@interpl6089]

12:36 Please stop with this stupid lie. The engine isn't a copy or even a derivative of the German one. They have *nothing* incommon other than being both X-shaped engines.

[@t.beklemishev8461]

that is the level of expertise in western europe we observing in this video rn. sad

[@raideurng2508]

Okay, prove it.