Radical or Ridiculous? | T-14 Armata | Tank Chats
2024 ж. 19 Сәу.
1 792 588 Рет қаралды
In this Tank Chat, David Willey takes a detailed look at a vehicle that has garnered significant interest and controversy - The Russian T-14 Armata. David explores why this vehicle draws so much attention, and how it has taken a radical departure from previous Soviet design philosophy.
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► KZhead Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:47 | Soviet Tank History
09:58 | Armata Family
11:17 | T-14 Features
15:27 | Production
#tankmuseum #t14armata #armata #davidwilley
Hi Tank Nuts - let us know your thoughts about this video in the comments below.
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.
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 ........🤦
How about radically ridiculous? 😁
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.
@@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. 😁
T-14 has highly effective stealth coating. It's never been seen on the battlefield.
T-14 is the most expensive ricer tank of all time.
lmfaoooo🤣🤣
Hahahah
Evidence!?!? 😂😂😂
Daaaammmmmmnnnnn
I feel like any footage of the T-14 should come with the disclaimer “Not actual game footage” 😂
The best way to discern real footage is to determine whether the turret is spinning wildly. If it is, it's real footage.
@@bigrob966T14 is a dual use vehicle. Tank and Helicopter all in one.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe eeking out a few extra centimeters in the turret-tossing challenge
@@bigrob966 Isn't it amazing what one can power with clockwork?
If it's stuck then it's a T14
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!
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.... ;)
much like the T-14 except for the diving in part.
Me too. I'm addicted to context.
This museum has a staff rated 5 stars
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!!
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.
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.
@@Aneurysmeuh 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.
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.
@@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.
@@Aneurysmeuh 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...
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said, by so many, about so few tanks
preach
Maus ? e100? Sgt York? Divad?
More has probably been written about Tiger tanks than all other tanks combined.
U should get ur ears checked
@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.
This tank’s capabilities only exists on paper. The budget to build it went into super yachts and private mansions
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.
@@timbo66real tanks can't stand against real antitank weapons. The pendulum once again swings from advantage: armour to advantage: firepower
@@timbo66they have back channels for electronics, it's a new term, either "smuggling" or "sanctions-busting" either will do.
@@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?
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
This is an excellent channel. You guys present everything so clearly without any unnecessary bells and whistles.
Apart from the fact that they literally hate Russia and are particularly biased against Russian tanks for no good reason.
@@Dollymix001 .... They hate bad tanks in general... not just russian tanks... but for the most parts, russian tanks are bad overall.
@@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.
@@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?
@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
Since tank museum is now covering new vehicles, maybe it might make an interesting episode on KF51 Panther?
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.
"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!
Entered combat a few months ago
@@Mortablunt claimed to be in combat a few month ago. so far only claims.
@@dtrain1634 we don't bring those to parades
@@dtrain1634 Very good point. I concur.
@@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.
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
Best give it to the Ukrainians then if it needs ERA
Tsk
Just wait for those F16 ERA variants in the hands of the Ukraine air forces. It will be glorious
i installed some ERA on my Rav4, it turned into a hangarship, currently docked in oslo, look it up.
Bro u need ERA on yor ERA
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.
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.
@@OwlsStudio lel
@@TanksInSpace_ 🤮
@@TanksInSpace_ ....and he was a woman before
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.
Great piece of work as expected from The Tank Museum
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.
Even with today's advanced sensors, probably works great to stick your head out and look from time to time.
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.
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.
@@basilmcdonnell9807 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.
@@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.
Very interesting hearing the development history of Cold War Russian tanks. Helps a lot with understanding how the T14 came about.
Agreed, it was a great primer
You mean, didn't come about.
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.
Lazerpig does a great breakdown or rather rips apart the T14... its a great watch.
@@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.
T-90 is such a beautiful tank
I swear i was about to say that 😂
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.
Not if the survivality of your tank in the battlefield is under one hour.
Also corrosion could be an issy.
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.
Dont need one when one will get provided when it gets penned.
@@arctic_hazewell, that's about how long this "counterattack will make headway, yeah?
"getting any tank onto the battlefield is problematic." Getting any tank off the battlefield in working condition is near impossible.
На каждое действие есть противодействие! Ньютон.
Походу уже реально, вывести с поля боя заведëный исправный танк
This applies primarily to Leos and all American Excavators.
Spoken by someone who has never been on a tank in their life. Stick to video games.
@@tomrabe8037and also the tanks the T-90 of Russia, T-72 of Russia anf probably soon T-30 of Russia?
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.
I no understand. You no speaky Engrish.
Chris is also a really good narrator, and I like his voice better than Willey's. Still, I think both are excellent.
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
Only thing we know for sure is that the turret rotates
Whether the crew want it to or not if the videos are anything to go by.
it's the new acorn seed lift off assistant mode, helps increase turret toss heights by up to 69%
yes but did they fit the same turret spring as in the older tanks?
I love that they flex a spinning turret as the mark of peak tank design.
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.
Were you ever stationed in Korea? 2/72?
@@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.
Former 19E1/2 from 348th ACAV (ARNG) here. Represent!
_> I found this to be a great informative video._ I find you gullible.
@@Conserpov perfectly irrelevant
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.... 😮
It's smoking on purpose to deflect infrared !
Thank you. Outstanding stuff!
making yourself dependent from countries you may potentially go to war with for parts to build your tanks is just pure genius.
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.
I'm French. Don't worry the weapon we sell to our customers, are not as efficient as the real ones we have.
@@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).
BOT your channel has no content.
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...
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.
Reliable untill they talked abt the engine….
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.
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.
Its called corruption, not supply chain issues 😂
@@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.
“Western analysts remain skeptical” Ain’t that a surprise😅
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
@@jeromeace1282 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.
@@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.
@@jeromeace1282 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.
@@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.
the T14 and the SU57...legends of their time...literally.
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.
Yup. A great many things seem plausible, sensible and even desireable on paper, until they collide with reality.
Really because last I checked GPS was exactly why the coalition won against Saddam.
@@emberfist8347it was one of many reasons.
@@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.
@@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.
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. 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.
It failed even in a parade. Broke down in a cloud of smoke. The engine is hopelessly bad.
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"
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.
@@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.
The "turret" is actually a radar unit.
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.
😂💯
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…
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).
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.
@@forrestpenrod2294 Most likely they're crap like so many others.
Has your comment aged well? No. Why? Because you are uninformed. @@forrestpenrod2294
The T-14 carries the latest Romulan cloaking device.
The Deputy minister of defense meant to say "There is currently no need to mass produce the T-14, because it doesn't work and we can't afford it"
Or he needs a new yacht
T-90m can fight any existing targets, so you better produce them. Also t-90 is most tested platform, so it incredible reliable
It does work but its very expansive
@@lvivct If he needs a new yacht, he would announce that they will build 3000 T14s and then steal the money for those T14s to buy his own yacht
I mean why build a T-14 really, The US don't build a new tank every time they need an upgrade they just upgrade the Abram to fight modern needs, same can be done with the T-80s and T-90s. And even Britain's "New" Challenger 3 is some Challenger 2s being upgraded and given a new name.
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.
Thank you for this comment.
Must have had next gen thermo-optical active camouflage since there's so few sightings.
THANK YOU! Someone knows his stuff.
Lazerpig made these mistakes too.
I don't know if this tank will ever see mass orders, production and deployments. But it introduces sound design ideas: unmanned turret, active protection, light weight, a protecting crew capsule for the crew, high mobility. My guess is that other nations will copy its ideas to build many light, cheap, smart tanks, with lighter armor and a protecting crew capsule.
Good point. Those western h 8 ters literally don't understand how valuable that design is. But it's weight is not light, it's a heavy tank design. As with any tank, it's weight increases with times, due to upgrades, it has already been increased in armata as well ,as it went through several iterations of improvement and armor enhancements... and something tells me that it will increase even more in 2024.
What I did not realise until recently is that the number of a Russian tank is its approximate design/manufacture date. For example a T 70 was designed around 1970. Presumably this T 14 was designed around 2014.
Kinda like this, but its not precise
t70 is ww2 tank
Дружище это танк разработан с древнейших времён тоесть 33 года назад
@@werionisit's not the same tank at t-95
The design of the T-14 starts around 2010 after the canselation of the Object.195 (or T-95). I think it was publicaly revealed in 2015 for the first time.
The 14 stands for the number of units that will be produced.
21 have been produced, more in the future
*Numbers of the functioning ones
@@dyddsko "more in the future 🤡" Explain how you think that is possible.
@@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.
@@-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.
Really great video, I appreciated the in-depth dive into Soviet-era tank design philosophy.
Russia lost 2.000 tank but they still have 10.000 more.
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."
The problem is that this tank fails to provide what it was primarily designed for....crew safety. If you look at footage of the tank, in particular in and around the crews compartment, you will undoubtedly notice how thin the armour is on the top of section of the vehicle. It is literally only an inch or so thick, far less than is needed to withstand modern top down ATGMs or anti tank munitions dropped by drones! The crew would appear to stand no better chance if hit in this portion of the tank than they would in any of the Russian T series tanks. The only benefit is that it is probably less likely to experience a cook off that would instantly toast the crew, but that being said I'm not convinced that ammunition detonation isn't still a likely cause for these vehicles to be damaged and knocked out, even if the crew do survive it!
Yes, just like the Abrams, this tank was not designed for the modern era of drone warfare. I think we're not seeing them in battle because Russia realizes they are not going to be effective and that the nature of warfare has changed so much that MBTs are on the precipice of obsolescence.
Every modern tank is vulnerable to top attack...Abrams was obliterated by FPV drones....so was Bradley and Leopards. Challenger 2 got obliterated by obsolete 1980s Konkurs missiles.
@@interpl6089 But they were much older designs. The T14 was advertised as having the ultimate in crew protection on the modern battlefield! Obviously they kind of made a mistake in that presumption😁
@@Altair885The only one making mistake is you. T-14 has Malachite ERA on the roof of the ''crew capsule'' which will protect against ATGMs and especially Drones...It has Composite armor underneath that. You can see that when the hatches are open. On the crew hatches there's a good layer of composite armor visible. You can't put ERA on a crew hatch. The crew is well protected against drones and missile...however the problem comes with so called ''mission kill'' which is basically destroyed optics or disabled gun.
@@interpl6089 Guess we'll see, well, if they ever actually put one on the battlefield! 🤔😁
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!
Does the T14 offer the helicopter turret as an option, or is that standard with Russian armored vehicles? 🎉
That’d be their lesser known active defence system, “The Iron Tulip”.
They are using nato approach of armoured explosive bussel. So. No.
I doubt it's as good as previous generations when it comes to how high it can be launched when forcibly dislodged... don't think that matters. Remember how those Soviet tanks try to be lighter than NATO ones? Armata still tries to. One way it aims to achieve it is through that unmanned turret. Which can be translated to: our turret does not need armor. Which means NATO can shoot the turret, disable the gun and change the T-14 into a very expensive 3 man taxi. Or at least on the good days when the motor runs. I also find it strange that the reverse speeds have been left out. For all claims concerning mobility, Russian tank reverse speeds have been so poor, they tend to turn their tanks around on the spot in order to get away quicker...
@@FrancisFjordCupola how does an unmanned turret translate into no armor for the turret automaticly ?
like leopards in syria and coming soon to all the garbage the west has sent ukraine
If a three man tank team is worth materially more to an army than the tank itself then it pays to have them in a heavily armoured capsule whilst the rest of the tank is more lightly armoured. This gives the ability to make a tank that is equally well armed as the Country's near peer adversaries, lighter, and more mobile yet with a crew that are at least equally if not more protected to by the armoured crew capsule.
Thank you! 🙂
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!!
@@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.
@@Lonewolfmike No, it does not. Don't lie.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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 😉
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
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.
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
That amount of force doesn't even have to penetrate... Or will separate the turret, or roll over another tank...
@@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.
Its designed for tank to tank combat which even in Ukraine is rare. Most tanks in Ukraine are being used against infantry and fortified positions hence why the Russians are using up old gear. If you se tank on tank its usually a T90. Same as the fellon. Its a stealth fighter that isn't needed to fia handful of mig29 and su25s
That is the most copium I have ever seen. If they have this advanced tech, why don't they use it instead of getting their asses handed to them by Ukraine? The answer? They don't have this advanced tech. And the SU-57 felon is not a stealth fighter, it has the RCS of a clean Super Hornet, and exposed engines that give it a heat signature similar to the sun. It's at best a reduced visibility 4.5 gen fighter, with mostly 4th gen tech thrown into a 4.5 gen airframe.
It doesn't really matter how good the design is - in the end it is all in the ability of the designer to field them in big enough numbers, train the crew, provide maintenance and suitable replacements in the big enough rate. I mean, that has been the rule of war since the dawn of time but maybe the best seen in WWII. Germans rushed some designs that had a promise but required more time for development (Me-262 and StG 44), but it didn't matter as they could not build, train for or replace them in a big enough numbers. You'd think that Russians, out of all people, would have learned that lesson because it was their strategy of outproducing the enemy with "decent enough" weapons rather than creating the "ultimate weapon" that helped them push back the tide. So the talk about how good T-14 or Su-57 or what ever is, is pointless. Weapon systems do not exists in a vacuum and on their own. When you include all the parameters what I mentioned here, there is still a question of how well it integrates with the overall army it serves it, how well it coordinates, how good are its support units... Military is a SYSTEM, a very COMPLEX SYSTEM. An airplane, a tank, a ship - on their own they are just expensive pieces of scrap metal and electronics.
Yep, its like the ultimate German tank the King Tiger or whatever it was and the K-Wagen from WW1. Both tanks were amazing and could probably destroy everything, but for every 1 Tiger made they'd be like 10 other tanks. I remember this was the philosophy of the Germans and US in WW2, the panzers were superior in everyway but the US had so many Sherman tanks and were outproducing the Panzers that any loss of the Panzer hurt the Germans more than the loss of a Sherman to the US. In the modern day the US is like Germany and the Russia is like the US. The USSR/Russia VASTLY outnumber the tanks of the US, thats the superior advantage that they have. Any loss of an Abrams does more damage than any T72 loss. Now, with the T14 the table is flipped. The fact that Putin didn't follow typical USSR doctrine just goes to show you how delusional he is. Its the same story with how bad the AK-12 is compared to the AK74M and AK100 series.
@@rjhick1 I would not be quick to compare US to Germany and Russia to US in that way. Yes, Abrams is a superior tank to T-72 (and newer) and more expensive... but USA had, and has, the ability to produce, field, repair and replace those Abrams on the same scale as Russia has with T-72. So I would not say that it hurts USA more to lose Abrams than it hurts Russia to lose T-72. Frankly, even though T-72 is overall cheaper and simpler to produce, Russian economy and industrial capacity is so bad that I think it still hurts them more to lose MBT like that than it hurts USA. Abrams is more on pair with T-90 I think, and Russia has a hard time of fielding those, because they came around when the USSR was going down so not that many were made. The reason why T-72 is still the most seen tank is because it came around at the height of USSR industrial might. For small arms, I'd agree with you. But for these tanks, US economy is still so much bigger than Russian one that even a loss of such an expensive tank as Abrams is easier for US to withstand than for Russia to lose a 50 year old tank.
For those who might missed the first minutes of the video, it was mentioned that some of the info here, taken from various internet sources, maybe propaganda. One of these is the notion (mentioned by Lazerpig) that the Armata uses an engine derived/inspired/copied from a German engine. I tried to find evidence but I only found one website that seems to be dubious. Edit: Lazerpig has made a new video where.he detailed his research here. Though he did admit that it wasn't definite as Russia hasn't declassified info regarding it.
yeah.. better watch redeffect videos. more accurate
I think LazerPig is a source now...
@@gerfand a very wrong source
@@ASlickNamedPimpback KZheadrs are not a source, but yes, its bogus claims on top of that
@@dtrain1634lazerpig is a youtuber and openly admit his bias. This does not mean he willfully shares misinformation but does mean he make different choices in sourcing and presentation.
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.
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.
It’s a tall vehicle though. It’s tall and heavy lol.
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)
Is much more cheaper and better just picking the t90m and puting a better reverse speed on it with an active protection system. Now with the war demand they are expanding their production of t72b3m and t90m and because of that i think Armata is going to a dead end or at least a completely stop on its program.
I was on my way to Cornwall and accidently bumped into the Bovington Tank Museum. Boy was I, a World of Tanks player, pleasantly surprised.
Imagine the price of a captured T14. Great Vid Mr Willey
Whatever the price of scrap steel is times the weight of it.
Imagine the price of an uncaptured one.
Worth it's weight in tin
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.
Yeah, the Russians are also looking forward to capture one.
The T-14 got promoted to a T-34. Saw one in the last Moscow parade.
I love how they only had a SINGLE t-34-85 for the tank section
@@Dargesh890 yknow they do that with every victory parade?
@@localdude3702 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.
@@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
@@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.
Finally a reliable source.
Simply an OUTSTANDING VIDEO. By far the best I have seen on the T-14.👍
It doesn't answer its titular question though
watch lazerpig videos about the t14
Lol.
Another DW classic - and thank you Bovington for all this amazing content!
Enough fore lock tugging . . sugar is bad for the health
Very well done!
So stealth that it has never seen the battlefield.
Just like F-22. Oh wait … she proudly destroyed a Chinese balloon 😂
@@kskuroku cirillic alphabet detected. Opinion rejected. Let's talk about the su-57! So stealth that all 19 are kept in hangars in order to avoid solo-crashes 🤣🤣🤣
@@sickbale Cyrillic speakers launched the first man into space and built the world's first nuclear power plant. and all you're smart enough to do is put likes to yourself. lol let's talk about the F-35, which even US Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller called a piece of s*** 😂😂😂
@@kskuroku The Soviet Union was blessed with many of the greatest scientists and engineers in history who pioneered technologies that in some cases didn't appear in the west until decades later. That doesn't change the fact that the F-35 is by far the most capable and numerous 5th generation fighter jet (using radar stealth based on the groundbreaking work of Soviet physicist and mathematician Petr Ufimtsev), while the Su-57 has been deprived of funding, suffered similar delays to the F-35, and there's only the money to build them at a very low rate. The designers and engineers behind the Su-57 aren't at fault - it's the corruption in the system which does the damage and screws them over, and pointing fingers at the US and other countries is only making it harder for Russia to deal with its own problems.
@@trolleriffic it's nice to see a sane person. I would argue with some points about the f-35, but these are trifles
Great video! A unique insight into the vehicle being discussed but also the current Russian battlefield situation and tank build / supply situation.
Do you also still believe in Saddam's WMD? 🤣
What would these corny dudes know about battlefield realities?
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.
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.
@@Appletank8 That's what I had in mind. I've heard the term "glass floor".
@@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
@@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.
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.
I'll wait till I see one in combat before I draw any conclusions as to just how effective it is.
Do you mean how effectively he destroys fortified areas, blindages? Surely not worse than other tanks
@@StandingHereI - I have no idea how it will perform. I know what the talking heads say but talking heads appear to lie all the time. Only on the battlefield can you see how well something works.
Well it’s not effective if it’s not in production and not on the battlefield.
@@francesconicoletti2547how do you know if armata is on production and on the battlefield?
@@francesconicoletti2547 - I guess I wont see one in combat then.
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
Yeah just like the abrams x and that new shitty panther.
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.
@@sirex9244the KF51 panther came before the Abrams X, the Abrams X is a knockoff of a next-gen tank.
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.
Like the kinzhal?
There are some miths there. I have direct experience of being inside the turrets of both the T-64 and T-90 and they aren't that lacking in terms of space (by the way, I'm 1,86m). It felt like being seated in the front seat of a car. I had plenty of elbow room and everything seemed to be well thought in terms of ergonomics. Also most of the Russian tank-men I came to know were about my size.
So is it a myth that tankers had to be 5'1-5'3 back in the day, or did they improve the space in vehicles as time went on after the T-34 and T-54/55?
@@ajohnymous5699 I can only talk about my experience, but T54/55 (I have no experience with T34) is considerably less spacious and has poorer ergonomics than a T64 and a T90.
I sure do like my miths
I wish them great success in deploying it. Then I want to see the farmers steal all of them. That will never get old
I bet Ukrainian farmers are studying those t-14 armata videos on how to better convert and utilize them after capturing
It's good advertising for JOHN DEERE to
@@hughsmith2657 *Zetor Tractors* is the most popular tractor brand in Ukraine.
LMAO!
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.
Is this the tank whose reactive armour is in fact egg boxes?
T55 was my tank during my service between 1973-1975 and during my reserve service until 1982. I was a tank commander in the IDF and those tanks were captured during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. I started as a driver and a 5'11" tall, that was a torture. I could never sit straight in the drive compartment. I ended up my service as a commander and again, the ergonomic of this tank was awful. When the hatches are fully closed, you basically sit on top of the gunner. This tank is not for the claustrophobics. Mechanically the biggest issue was the clutch. Those burn off like crazy. Also, those tanks were designed for cold weather and they got easily overheated in the hot weather of the Sinai peninsula.
Stop stealing peoples stuff then 🤣 Make your own!
@@michaelbiri6676 I'd say strop starting wars you cannot win, and you won't have your stuff stolen... 🙃
The T-14 truly is one of the tanks of all times.
Shame they are not real, they are just sales demonstrators and will never be built in large numbers since Russia is now bankrupt and the rest of the world won't buy it since they seen how badly Russian weapons are now.
@David I don’t think you understood the joke.
@@kc5qdxprI will help you by quoting @ELBuAR7o😉 "The T-14 truly is one of tanks of all times."😆
If it exists
@Neal Wasnt it beacuse of the driver? i though that he made a mistake and engaged handbrake. As i recall it drove away itself
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.
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.
Dropping knowledge 👍 I DIG IT
a huge problem with these unmanned turrets is simply the fact that situational awareness is highly diminished not having the commander out of the hatch when needed...i just see so many problems with this i expect to see people running over things they were not supposed to when backing up and easily getting flanked by rpg's as well as many other weapons u could not pay me to get in this thing id rather be in a version 1 abrams
The drawbacks you point out are valid but inadvertently, the Russians might be onto something. I think it will be easy to adapt these tanks for this new, modern era of drone supremacy as traditional tMBT's have pretty much lost battlefield relevance. It'll be easy to convert it to a remotely operated drone tank, maybe guided by aerial reconnaissance drones.
@@dirremoire uh are you talking about there t14 being turned into a remote operated tank or any of there tanks cause thats not viable at all for the t14 but yeah they probably should get on that for all there older ones atleast before t90 might actually get some value out of it that way and the earlier you start the faster you can develop things to help with awareness
@@Broken_dish Yeah, the T-14 already has an automated turret. It's also fast and would be able to pull off rapid maneuvers on a battlefield that would be impossible with a crewed tank the Russians are probably already working on it now.
@@dirremoire ya but i mean its supposedly been in production for what over 5 years now and they have like 10 serial production tanks and havnt even seen combat they cant even make non remote ones how will they make t14 that are remote i dont think they have the funds to make anything new right now they seem to be scrambling to get new people to join and that cost money and refurbishing old stuff and logistics and buying new weapons from nk iran so thats why i think it dosent seem likely anytime soon atleast maybe once they stop trying to take ukraine or something then yeah maybe
@@Broken_dish1) We have no idea how T-14s they have. 3) They're smart not to send any to battle as they would just get destroyed like the Leopards and Challengers. 3) Don't you find it amazing that Russia is winning the war to free the ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine from the corrupt,ultra nationalist government in Kyiv? Actually, they're defeating all of NATO.
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.
I can’t really imagine that the Russians have made adequate sensors to replace the crew in the turret. They might have though.
@Masada1911 prime targets for snipers though. Hit all the cameras and the tank is mission killed.
@@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.
@trololoev no you look through periscope viewing ports...
@@trololoev most western tanker commanders will be looking out the turret.
Will be interested to see the first T14 at Bovington!
Along with the ukranian tractor that towed it there 😂
That's if it cab defeat the Ukrainian Tractors 🚜
I think Challenger will appear in Kubinka much earlier. We’re waiting ! 🥂
I think we see first Abrams at Kubianka museum. It is coming.
@@tomk3732 Challenger too, and the captured Leopard tanks lined up next to German WW2 tanks..
Its called the T-14.. because they only have that many running lol
Considering recent events, here's a possible new title for a video: Leopard 2 : Hero or Zero?
Zero it seems 🤷♂️
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!).
Finally someone who is a tank nerd in this sea of memes
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
@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..
@M Berg Today, the elite of NATO armored vehicles is powerless on the Ukrainian front, against the Russian (rubbish) 😁
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.
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'
Thanks!
Best Russian Tank,no doubt about that, but obviously to expensive for mass production.
The main impression I got from all the T14 promo videos I've seen, is that its turret spins. I think they got that point across sufficiently lol..
But does it fly? That is the real question!
you see they have invented a new way of driving the tank which utilizes springs which need to be wound up by the turrets rotation and its the most reliable way to power it because the engine is only needed to produce a lot of noise and not for drivong it because obviously they would have tried to copy maybe a newer engine design like a turbine but its too quiet and they need the noise because otherwise they can find their tanks because glonass doesnt work and they need the engine for smoke
@@Diggnuts it might but still not as spectacular as Abrams/Leopard's one
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.
Yes British in 48, Soviets in 54 then the US not until 1972 (Bar the Sheridan light tank in 67).
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.
@@williamzk9083 all that writing and you missed the point. 2 plane stabiliser.
@@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.
@@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.
a mine and two drones of 1.000€ each will be all it takes. Keep them comin
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
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.
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.
Seems they took their "facts" from same Lazerpig sources. Video clearly biased. They really want undermine own reputation by such cheap moves lately.
@@LeonmitchelliGalette haha yeah keep believing that russia came out with an x layout engine by themselfes :D
Love how he put a miniature figure of t-14 beside him on an old soviet KV-1 😁👌 *Thanks for the correction guys.😆👌🏼👍
i am about 95% sure that is a KV1. But either way it is indeed a nice idea
I think it is a KV 1 tank.
That’s a KV1
Thanks for the corrections guys, much appreciated. 👌👍
KV1.
If someone gonna talk about tanks are these channel they are the master about tanks
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.
Thank you for a wonderful and informative video!
“Claimed”, “According to Russian sources”, and “it’s believed” - these are very important phrases when dealing with this tank. And thanks you for touching on the history of its engine. LazerPig fan here.
Lazerpigs video about the t-14 demonstrates he knows absolutely nothing about engines and tanks. As a tank nerd I physically couldn’t finish the video, that is how much stuff he blatantly made up.
@@schutzanzug4518 You should finish it - I understand the feeling you’re describing - but personally, when I disagree with something, I feel a strong need to fully understand their argument - and like or hate LP, he does attempt to put his argument(s) throughout his videos.
Im ex army ranger and I love your tank talks
Unmanned turret is a great idea tbh.
After serving in the armoured infantry I can't fathom the crew not being able to poke there head up and take a physical look at the battle picture. I totally agree it breaks alot of basic design philosophy.
The ambushed Chally shows you the danger of relying on electronic sights and cameras alone. A few paint bombs and paint sprayers and you're now blind and panicking! A low tech solution to a high tech problem!
@@LondonSteveLee I don't know how easy it is to sneak up on one with paint bombs, but if there's a way, it will be a very real problem
@@PeterJavi drop paint with drones?
@@kade4198 if you can drop paint then you might as well drop something that can penetrate the top armor.
@@timmyteehee9490 Drones with paint buckets or paint guns can be smaller and cheaper than something made to carry a real weapon I suppose. This would make it more viable to use them in larger numbers.
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!
No worries about that in russia. Malnutrition will keep children from growing too tall.
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.
@@tranquilthoughts7233 Their average height is around 5'10"
😁
@@Anuj-1 and that's including the Asiatic regions of Russia. Slavs are generally taller than other Europeans.
I thought the soviet design philosopy was always the same as Weyland-Yutani : "Crew expendable"
9 min of video and we are still only reach T-90.
Spot on report! Thank you! The T-14 seems to have been made irrelevant as a war weapon as soon as RUS invaded UKR. Most of its essential parts are no longer available to RUS since these parts come from NATO countries and NATO allies. Relying on your greatest adversaries for supplying essential components and then attacking UKR in a clear unprovoked invasion is not a good way to keep the supply chain flowing.
From my point of view, you are totally correct. Except for the "unprovoked invasion". Sure Putin started the war, but the West was involved in the escalation since 2008 for sure.
The parts are still available to Russia. They just domestically made them. Proof of this was the recent equipping T62's and old T72b's with thermal imaging
@@garliclover7991 🤯 Damn the west and their 2014 invasion of Crimea. Russia gonna protect their friend from evil America.
@@garliclover7991 Goal of the Invasion was to Annex Territory as happened in Sept 2022. Any other explenation is a Rus (pun intented), and if you believe it just shows that russian Propagana works. Russia was never afraid of NATO; when Finnland joined NATO the fins build... fence, while the Russians removed Tanks and S-300 because these were needed in Ukraine.
@@garliclover7991 it was unprovoked, thats why russians need to lie about every aspect of the war. EVERYTHING they publicize ends up being almost completely fabricated. They wouldnt need to try so hard to convince people if the war was even remotely provoked.
I seem to remember the M1 Abrams having a lot of teething problems when it was designed and produced. Except we had the American public to fire hose tax money at it to fix the problems. I think the Armata has lots of innovative features that need to have the bugs worked out but in the end it could be a fine tank. I particularly like the crew compartment and the emphasis on crew protection.
yeah...so tell it to the Russian crews that goes...pop goes the weasel whenever the top turret blows. Do you think the "tax dollars" spent for development come anywhere "close" to the amount of Rubles "siphoned" throughout their "KLEPTOCRACY" and general staffs and not into developments of their weapon systems. The Ukraine war has revealed the inept military and "hardly" functional military equipment. For God's sake they send personnel carriers out on flat tires. Tanks and supporting apparatus is "nearly" non-existence. They had to pillage local convenience stores for supplies.
@@hcf1956 Yes, you have propaganda like Goebbels.
@@vladimirnikolskiy yeah comrade. You rusktes are doing a helluva job kill women and children. Ecoterrorism as well as war crimes, Baghdad Bob.
T14 had only one problem- engine/powertran unit mass production. All the other is ok
NATO tanks are getting blown up and incapacitated left and right as well. Despite their supposed technical superiority. (And good luck repairing them!) The Russian tanks otoh are fairly easy to repair, and has better maneuverability. For the current conflict, their existing tanks fit the bill. Hopefully we will get to see more of the Armata after the war.
it’s a new concept unmanned turret all the crew in the hull that’s probably why it’s catching attention
With advent of augmented reality and virtual reality, this might be a workable system if it were allowed to mature
Errrr u recall a Swedish Tank...ermmm?
@ 12:03 Did you say the long rod penetrator was nineteen or ninety centimeters long?