Is turret a problem for T-14 Armata?
2019 ж. 22 Сәу.
311 875 Рет қаралды
Its not a secret that the turret of T-14 is not that well armored, in fact it seems like it cant take any kind of APFSDS projectile, but can only offer protection against autocannon fire. Well I am going to tell you exactly why it is actually a pretty darn good idea to do that. You may think think I am crazy, but I will tell you why this is possibly the best tank design to this day.
Patreon: / redeffect
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
Sources:
btvt.info/2futureprojects/arma...
*BUT WE ALL KNOW* "No ArMoR iS BeSt tHe aRmOr"
No armor or stalinium is the best?
*laugh in hull break*
*Laughs in APFSDS going through without making any damage*
Lamo this isn't war thunder
Stalinium is better 'cause it stops even perestroika APFSDS rounds dipped in Stalin's blood for more weight. Plus your drunken crew will be woken up from impact instead of killed and will keep fighting.
worst enemy of T-14 is Russian mil budget
More like the Russian economy. It's about the size of the GDP of New York state!
@@andrewmagdaleno5417 you can't compete with a country that milks whole world
The forecasts say Russia will be the largest economy in Europe before 2k30. Let's see how it actually goes...
@@dicecorporation With kinds of clowns running the show today? Forget about it.
@@DartTyler Those forecasts are made with the "clowns" in mind
Seeing how rare tank on tank battles are I think the focus on protecting the tank from RPGs and ATGMs rather then other tanks is a good shift.
We still need to worry about tank on tank battles as well
Still weird for a system with the primary purpose of engaging enemy tanks.
@@borkwoof696 it’s not weird it’s silly according to a study 90 PERCENT shells fired from tanks at other tanks hit the turret!!!! This armata lemons turret can only stop 40 mm rounds at the most!
Does it have turret armor? "Not much" Does it need much? "No" What's the issue then?
@Ionor Rea's Tech Evolution Archive Possibility of a flanking manovre is an issue for any tank. Even "muh abrums" is only protected from the front, so if flanked, you can have a 10m worth of protection in the front and it wont make a difference.
@@Notmyname1593 Hard to flank an Abrams.. they are never alone plus US has air superiority, so good luck to flank an Abrams
If 30mm autocannons can take out your gun, you have a problem.
@@47Trumpet Tobe fair, it is said the armor is only sufficient to protect from auto cannon.
@@misium WHICH autocannon ... some 20mm peashooter maybe, but lets take GAU8 that is spitting few thousand DU rounds at you from ABOVE ... you know the gun purpose designed to take out TANKS ...
At least the T-14s turret can protect against the Arjun's APFSDS.
lmao xD
Da fuk does Arjun has to do with T-14?? Seriously man 😑😑😑
I don't get this meme ? The Arjun doesn't have APFSDS or what ? Help please.
@@Vlad_-_-_ Well, they spend millions of dollar on Indian style Leopard 2 & after 30 years of development the tank is still a lemon.
@@murtazamir8706 I watched a video about it, the whole developement process was a proper comedy show aparently.And the tank is not very good at all, but is the APFSDS round it fires so weak ?
But but, no armor is best armor Oh wait, wrong channel
Muhammad Raihan It is, unless it’s your life on the line, which in the case of the T-14 is not the case but not so for glass cannon tanks of old.
What channel?
@@smalliesmalls9601 Phly Daily
No armor best armor but if no armor and no gun then what can it do an armored three soldier carrier? Lol
4:03 finally, the Russians have a tank they can powerslide without fear of flipping over.
It can still flip over if it power slides & skids off sideways from concrete into mud at high speed, like that T-72 did..except now instead of each of the crew having been made to be very intimate in a brutal way with the knobs, switches and metal things around them, in the Armata, they can do that and now bounce around in to each other (in a manly way,) if they don't have seatbelts/multipoint harnessess on or fitted.
Hanif Shakiba The biggest problem with Russian tanks flipping over or getting damaged in other ways have always been due to one thing, which is the same problem in all Russian tanks..........crazy Russian operators doing really dumb things that break their tanks, otherwise their tanks aren't that bad.
I'm sorry but we get drunk sometimes
@@BigM1020 which is totally understandable ✌
@@razor1uk610 lol hahaha your comment is beast XD
3:11 outstanding cat voice over brother...😂😂
When T14 comes to war thunder, it will be indestructible😂
Imagine what if it is a premium that costs 100$ USD. OOOOF
@@robert.m6755 100000 philippines pesos OOF
In war thunder it will easy target. because all crew is sit side by side. hit from side will easily one shot IN WAR THUNDER than other MBT
It'd probably be kinda shit though. Crew are all together and hitting the gun is extremely easy in War Thunder. It'll just end up feeling like a worse IFV because it has a tank gun instead of auto-cannon and it lacks ATGMs and it'll have the same spawn cost as an MBT.
hedgehog3180 oh yes. First thing thats destroyd in war thunder is your gun hehe. Its so realistic😂
Team Armata, I have respect for you 👍❤️
Cheers
With upgrade team Chally 2 will do better to blow T14 out of the battlefield. Ho HO HO fucking ho ya gone.
Matsimus man I just knew that I'd see you here hahaha
I love your videos mat !
Matsimus what happened to Challenger 2 gang?
While the active DAS is impressive, I'd be interested to see how it fares against ATGM utilizing a roof attack flight profile.
For a second i read DAS as DRS and i was confused for about 5 seconds
@@jammygamer8961 Formula One moment
Very well put together video. Only other problem I would have with the T14's turret is the fact that all the optics are directly on the turret "face", which makes them very vulnerable to incoming fire considering the turret cheeks are usually the most struck, and a tank that can't see can't shoot. Most NATO tanks (excluding that TOGS on the Cr2 which needs to be moved) have their optics and sensors on the top of the turret which is much less likely to be struck. I feel like the T14 could be quite susceptible to being outright blinded by strikes to the turret, and with the crew in their own sealed compartment, non electronic backup optics are probably not present.
Most people nowadays seem to have lost any grasp of reality. Spoiled by virtual arcade video games like World of Tanks, they think tank warfare is all about aiming at the optics and weak spot of a tank. In reality, tank gunners just aim at the mass of center of a target and not a specific area. If the worst part you are worrying about is the optics damaged after taking a hit, then it really proves how good this tank must be. Most MBTs can not even survive one single ATGM hit. Look how the M1A2 Abrams in Saudi Arabia went frying ablaze. Look how the Leopard 2 in Syria was cooking off after one missile hit. Most tank crews would be happy if they could even survive one single ATGM hit. If a tank gets hit by a powerful missile, the least part to worry about is the optics or engine, because the crew will probably be dead or injured.
@@xAlexTobiasxB To be fair, the Saudis had their Abrams out in the open at a standstill, surrounded by elevated terrain, had zero screening infantry, and apparently, tank commanders asleep at their CITV, because no self-respecting tank crew would ever be so complacent as to let ATGM gunners fire down at them with impunity. Same with Turkish Leopard 2s, same with Merkavas in Lebanon. In all cases, the tanks operated on their own with zero combined arms thought, and took fatal side (and even rear!) shots as a result. While it is wrong to dismiss these K-kills wholly as a product of incompetence, it is a fair point that modern tanks still have pretty big weak spots and those in the know are well equipped to neutralise them.
@@MonMalthias What would the "screening infantry" supposed do against ATGM hitting a tank you moron? Are the infantry supposed to throw hemselves heroic in the path of the missile and sacrifice themselves to protect the tank or what? You can not deny the enemy to shoot at you, it's impossible. At some point (sooner or later) the enemy will have a chance to fire a missile at your tank, screening infantry or not, doesn't matter. It's very hard and difficult to even spot enemy ATGM team, it's not like they are jumping up and down and waving their hands to get your attention, they are trying to hide very low on the ground, behind bushes and hills, you can't just easilly spot them, not even with thermal optics. The only solution to effectively protect tanks against ATGMs is with APS (or add-on armor/ERA all around). If it was a Merkava Mk.4M instead, they would not even be scratched (protecte by Trophy APS) and the eneny missile team would probably dead now.
@@xAlexTobiasxB WWII naval shells, fired from over 10.000m distance, were surely not aimed specifically at the turrets, but the turrets ended up to be statistically hit more than any other part of the ship. Because they are exposed.
"BuT ReD AbRaMs Has 900mm AgAiNsT AP NoThiNg Can PeNeTrArE ThAt" lel
I penetrate Abrams manlet easily with T-90 MS HEAT rounds in armored warfare but its an arcade game, not a simulator
but too bad even in war thunder the mantlet and for some reason the turret ring can be penetrated by tanks even from ww2
@@spotfleri5779 I think you don't know how ammunition works in war thunder XD In WT the bullet model is just a line with two ends and that's why 152mm rounds can also slide under the turret tigth into the ring.
@@Tankliker Of course i know how it works dimwit. It just baffles me how many people point out how realistic it is even if theres so many unrealistic feature in the game.
@@spotfleri5779 it is the most realistic tank simulator that you can play for free, that doesn't mean that it is the most accurate. I think games like Arma simulate how a crew works together because it isn't like in WT where every player has his own tank.
Hi RedEffect , Do u have some plans to make a video on Korean K2 Black Panther tank , or Japanese Type 10 tank in the near future? Some comparison with Russian and Western battle tanks ? :) Thenk u :)
i like the T14. some great innovative concepts and very much more focused on crew survivability then make up for it in numbers strategy. my only complaint is i preferred the concepts with the squared off gun barrel. that looked far more badass!
It seems like the T14 is trading some "staying power" on the battlefield for crew protection. (Disabling the gun or optics on the T14 does seem easier than on other MBT's) Considering the price and value of well trained crews today, that's an OK trade off in my book.
Good luck with trying to aim at the T14's electronics and the gun in an active battlefield. While the enemy is trying to hit the electronics and the gun, T14 could just easily shoot at the enemy from a long distance.
I would assume that the MBT's shooting at the T14 have equal FCS, and that the hit probability stays about the same. (The T14 turret is a bit smaller than most MBT's though) If you then take into account that most hits on tanks are to the turret, the odds of the T14 to take a hit there in active, front line combat, is without a doubt a real. So, the next question is: Can the active protection disable the APFSDS coming inn at 2000m/s to the point where it does NOT knock out some vital system in the turret? I'm not so sure about that. Hence, the comment about it's lower battlefield "staying power" (Take a hit = pull back from the front line, quick inn field turret replace, back to the front line) Then again, this is in a WW3 modern MBT vs MBT world, that hopefully will never happend. The days of APFSDS protection is in my eyes over
@@ChristianTheNorwegian There is no possibility of any tank's FCS to be good enough to hit electronics or optics. The gun and the ammo, be it the Rheinmetall L55 or the 2A46, are both only accurate enough to hit a "tank sized" target at 2km at high probability. Any hits to vital systems are purely by chance. Crews will lay the gun on the middle of the target and pull the trigger; they will not be able to pick and choose specific points on a tank to hit. Current gun and ammunition tolerances simply are not up to that kind of accuracy.
@@MonMalthias you can aim already for bigger details like the side of the turret or bigger outside components and with HE or HEAT you could blind the gunner and comander for a short while because of the explosion.
@@MonMalthias no, the L55 has a spread of 30cm per kilometer --> 60cm on 2 km
This is a well thought out thesis. Good Video
the title should say "Is the turret a problem for the T-14 Armata?" good video though
Beef Stew nobody gives a fuck
Except he faild to mention that only the front 180 of the turret has counter measures that can only hit thing that come level with the tank. T 14 is vulnerable to high angle attacks like hellfire.
@@ashlevrier aps will do with hellfire
I'm not so sure if it does have but, didn't the T-14 has softkill systems to counter some Missiles?
@@merlotingreigory3606 yeah
We would be wise to keep in mind that success of these APS systems is far from guaranteed. As always its a cat and mouse game of technology. I'm not even sure they can handle top attack munitions from the 1980s let alone APFDS rounds or more modern ATGM's. Its just one of many systems that all contribute to protection but its not a magic bullet. (well ok it kinda is a magic bullet but you know what I mean ;)
Then again, APFSDS and ATGMs aren't "magic" bullets either, so your argument goes both ways. The Afghanit APS is not designed to intercept high flying top-attack missiles (like the Javelin), but at least the roof top of turret is covered with ERA which should be able to protect against the HEAT jet of a missile.
They are expensive I'm sure, but they are probably worth it if the whole sustainable tank and crew concept is to be kept.
@@komradearti9935 You shouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of ERA, it is very effective against HEAT weapons. For example, even the old Kontakt-5 used on the T-90 was believed to be "outdated", yet in actual combat it still proved to be immune to the most modern variant of the TOW-II B missile (which has a tandem HEAT and still couldnt penetrate it). And the T-14 Armata uses even newer ERA "Malachit" which is more than twice as effective as the old Kontakt-5 of the T-90. I'm pretty sure it can easilly defeat any HEAT weapon in active service. The Javelin is quite old now from the 1990's, it will not be able to penetrate the new kind of ERA on the T-14, since it was never designed to do so. Even the newer Spike missile, which has a more powerful HEAT charge, will still have a hard time penetrating it.
@@komradearti9935 I meant BGM-71E TOW-2A, it was just a typo. But the point still stands, TOW-2A with tandem-HEAT could not penetrate the "outdated" Kontakt-5 ERA. T90 was hit multiple times by TOW missile and the "outdated" Kontakt-5 defeated the missile every time leaving only a scratch. Even if the Kontakt-5 is already "outdated" it's still doing its job very good apparently. Just imagine what the much newer and better Relikt and Malachit ERA can do, if even the "outdated" Kontakt-5 still works. Besides, there are many different versions of the Kontakt-5, in case you didn't know. The Russians upgraded the Kontakt-5 by giving it thicker plating and more epxlosives to make it even stronger and more resistant than the older version of Kontakt-5 from the Soviet Union 1980's. So the Swedish trials are totally useless. Since the Americans obtained some old Kontakt-5 from the Ukraine and tested it, the Russians modified the Kontakt-5 adding more explosives and thicker plating so it is even better today than the old version that was tested in the 1990's. So the Kontakt-5 is not useless today at all, in fact it is still very effective even against modern tandem-HEAT, which was proven in Syria in 2016, when it defeated a TOW-2A tandem-HEAT missile. But why are you only talking about the old Kontakt-5? I thought we are talking about the T-14 Armata, which uses much newer and better Malachit ERA, which works completely differently and is more than twice as effective as the "outdated" (but still working) Kontakt-5. We don't even know how the newer Malachit ERA works. You didn't prove shit by showing old photos from 1990's test. The picture doesn't even mention which ERA type or which projectile type was used for testing, it could have been Kotnakt-1 for all we know. It's totally meaningless. You are wasting my time. Come back at me when you have actual facts or evidence. There is still no real evidence that any missile can defeat Malachit ERA until it's tested. In any way, it still offers much more protection than the Abrams which has nothing on the top at all.
@@komradearti9935 The TOW-2A is still the most modern conventional variant of the TOW and it's also the most used variant in active service today. Only the TOW-2B (top-attack variant) is more modern, but it's not conventional warhead (because top-down attack) and it's also much less frequently used (since it's limited to a few customers only). So yes, the TOW-2A can still be considered as one of the most modern ATGM even for modern standards. Of course the are better missiles nowadays but just because it isn't the newest anymore, doesn't mean it's "outdated". That's not how it works mate. It's still a very powerful and dangerous missile to most tanks. It would completely destroy a M1 Abrams or Leopard if hit to the side armor (which it did in Yemen and Iraq and Syria) And no, it was not the T-90's basic armor that defeated the missile, as photo evidence proves it was only the Kontakt-5 entirely alone that completely defeated HEAT jet. The T-90 turret was only slightly scratched, meaning that the remains of the HEAT jet (the precusor) wasn't even strong enough to do any significant damage behind it. No penetration hole can be seen and the crew jumped out alive and uninjured. Which proves that the precusor won't do any damage. How do you know the Korean T-80U has upgraded Kontakt-5? I though only the T72B3M has the upgraded variant, as you said it yourself. So you just contradicted yourself there, congratulations moron. Where are the sources for all your claims? I couldn't find any informations about your claim. The Malachit ERA has a totally different mechanism and it works completely different so you are comparing two entirely different mechanisms. Remember the Malachut is more than twice as efefctive as the Kontakt-5. But it seems to me you are questioning the effectiveness of ERA in general, which is really stupid considering that there is enough evidence that ERA can effectively protetc against ATGMs. If it wouldn't work, then no one would use it. Even the Americans use ERA on upgraded Abrams (TUSK) and M2 Bradleys. The Germans also use ERA on the Puma IFV. And so do the British on their Challenger 2 MBT. So if ERA is so useless as you think, then why are so many countries using it? Do you really think you know more than the professional experts who design and test this stuff? You are very foolish. And even if some bits of remains of a defaeted jet (precusor) go through the ERA it is so weak that it can not do any serious damage at all. You don't even know the thickness of the T14 roof armor behint the ERA, it could easilly be enough to resist the fragments of a (already defeated) HEAT jet precusor. It is hard to penetrate something that the missile was never dsigned to penetrate.
Yes but it's not only the gun. You can replace a gun. The T14 Relies HEAVILY on technology and fast hot metal fragements tend to destroy technology pretty fast
The argument still stands. All other modern MBTs rely heavily on technology.
Yes and no, my biggest beef with a unmanned turret is the fact is if something does get damaged, a crew member is gonna have to climb out in the middle of combat under fire to try to get into the turret to fix it, and not only that I’m not sure if the t14 has a backup main gun sight if the thermal imaging gets knocked out, I mean how exactly would you get something like that to work when your in a completely separate sealed off section of the tank, also the commanders sight to, at least in tanks with manned turrets if something happens to the Independent commanders sight you could still resort to good old eyes and Binos, with a t14 not so much
@@socomgaming1014 1. If something in the turret got damaged in combat, you'd either have to be crazy or stupid to get out and try to fix it. Literally nobody would do that, in any tank. The whole point of an unmanned turret is that if it does get hit, the crew is still safe and can drive the tank into cover/safety. 2. The crew still have their own basic periscopes on the hull. Sure the vision is limited, but it's better than being blind.
cobalT I agree completely, getting out of the tank to fix something under fire is stupid, but that’s kind of the problem with the T14, in western tanks if something inside the turret gets damaged the crew will still be able to repair it considering the turret is manned, and they will also have a backup gun sight if the digital one is taken out, this isn’t really the case with the armata which I think is gonna give them problems down the road
@@socomgaming1014 You do realize that if there is a penetration to the turret the crew will either be dead or injured, at which point I'm pretty sure the crew wouldn't give a rat's ass about repairing the damage and would focus on getting the hell outta dodge.
From what I've heard, the new mass production model will be revealed at the 9th May parade so we will see if it has any major armour uogrades
Yeah,I’ve heard it too
They barely found money to build like 3 tanks and said that they will be upgrading the T-64s ... coz they were good enough. Russia is paper tiger ;)
@@tbyte007 As far as i know they will be upgrading their T72 B-s to T72 B3
they cost too much, it will not be mass produced, as far as i know, they're turning to other alternatives, like upgrading existing models.
@@tbyte007 mate, you mixed Russia and Ukraine up ;)
I'd like to see this work in real world situations. I don't like the assumption that the T-14's active protection is infallible. Otherwise I continue to enjoy your videos.
I would expect the US or other Western nations to develop something like the RPG-30, it shoots a smaller rocket intended to waste an APS round and leave a time window for the main charge to strike the armor. Although some newer APS systems claim to be ready milliseconds after firing, so that might be a problem.
Afghanit isn't able to intercept anything coming from the top, so the tank is completely undefended against Spike, Javelin, hellfire, Vulcano artillery ammo, etc... it's also quite easy to saturate, even more, since the T14 turret is the only MBT turret that wuold be seriously damaged by the automatic cannon of an IFV.
no technology is immune to failiure
Eh The problem here is that APS cant save you from autocannons - its gonna be easier to damage electronics/gun firing mechanism then usual tank. I doubt that its gonna safe from modern autocannons shells.
Arent all mbts not armoured for autocannon from the side?
Depends what autocannon shooting at the tank and what armor configuration tank have? For example T-90A and his square plates on sides - its Kontakt-5 modules. They ofc not gonna react on 20-30mm fire, but module have heavy hardened steel plate (15-30mm - depends what kind of module) that can work as spaced armor. And since soviet MBTs have 80mm thick side armor - its gonna protect you from autocannons. (dont forget that steel can be different too and soviets always tried to make quality better - for example T-64BV had same sides thickness as T-64A, but was able to give 15-20% more of penetration resistance).
If a tank crew allows an APC to get close enough to rake it with an autocannon then the problems is not the tank
@@overlord4404 "close enough" 1-1,5km if we talking about autocannon vs side armor (also depends from autocannon itself and type of ammo~).
@@ozza1785 I want to see any crew with just autocannon engaging a tank. Really? They only engage, and that is only when they have to, when they have something more than AC like ATGM.
I'm curious to find out how the T-14 APS does against Javelin ATGM. The videos show it firing to the side and down but not up.
The APS does not work against top attack missiles, but at least the roof is covered with ERA
The Javilin is its arch enemy.
APS can't defend against top attack weapons just yet
It was added onto T-90AM series, so i guess we will find out some day.
@@PugilistCactus No, the T-90 does not have an APS, at least no hard-kill system like the Armata.
That potato cat killed me. Also ending song?
Nothing says, "I don't care about friendly Infantry nearby," like Afganit. Dismounts won't be able to support within 50 meters of this thing, maybe more. It's probably why they had to go 100% buttoned-up, too. You've seen those things go off. Can't be healthy for a TC with his head out. Which is right where a commander's head needs to be. This is what combat experience says. No matter what sensors you have, it's your own brain that has to make sense of the data. Situational awareness is very difficult buttoned up. The Abrams "open protected" hatch position for the TC was developed for this reason. Periscopes are hard enough on SA. Now you're going to flip through screens under intense pressure and always know where you, your friends and your enemies are; all while physically separated from the outside world. Yeah... no. Technology supports the warfighter's senses and decision making. It doesn't supplant the senses, as the Russians are attempting to do. Even with "hunter-killer" fire control systems, a real TC during daylight hours spends much of his time with his eyes outside the turret. Hunter-killer systems are only primary for him during degraded visibility conditions. T-14 commander's will be running around looking at the battlefield through a toilet paper tube or a series of toilet paper tubes. Very limiting. Unless, of course, he gets a VR headset to emulate being out of the hatch. That might be a different story. F-35 quality sensor fusion technology on a Russian tank is as unlikely as mass-production of SU-57's.
Or you could invest in a camera that rotates 360 and has night vision and everything else. Or have multiple placed on the blind spots around the tank.
Well the Trophy system uses shotgun style interception rounds, and has been proven safe for friendly infantry, perhaps the same will hold true for Armata
@@benashurov7434 I'm not really sure where you got the notion that a shotgun is healthy for friendly infantry. But I won't be the one to test that theory.
The mindset behind the turret system in my opinion is that even if the turret gets disabled the crew can still retreat safely with the tank, this way they'll just need to replace turrets instead of tanks which seems by far the cheapest way to recycle the tank and the crew
Who says that after your turret is knocked out you will be able to retrait from combat?
@@kikebautista2110tactics.you can retreat before the enemy can get a proper kill, and therefore you are only missionkilled and can get your tank fixed.
A Russian tank with no turret armor is not a Russian tank
That particular turret is just a placeholder. The chassis is designed for quick-swap of damaged turrets, possibly in the field. The turrets on all the new Russian armor are swap-able.
@Antares117 How do you know they don't already have standing foreign orders for them? The other new armor-frame, which is fully amphibious and can be wheeled or tracked (and carry the same turrets as the T-14&15) is probably the one Russia will use itself, since it complements the Rasputitsa--Russia's historiograhic greatest weapon.
@Antares117 The Armata (T-14/15) chassis and drivetrain is 100% Russian-made and designed (or engineered). Is uvz a private company or a foreign one? Russia still benefits when they are built there, even if the gov't isn't getting the profits: the employees/employers pay into the social security system--jobs.
@Antares117 Unless the foreign customers put-up the cash to get-er-done . . .. Ask yourself why they would start producing comparable vehicles, one perfectly-suited to all of Russia, and one only suitable for the dryer and flatter areas? (It actually should be able to operate on Mars--if it carries an oxidizer for the fuel--the crew compartment of the T-15 might have the extra space needed for the oxidizer vessel, and it can be remotely-controlled from the command module in orbit.)
@Antares117 , In 2017 Russia ordered about 130 of them (I forget the exact numbers), which should be mostly delivered by the end of 2019. 100+ tanks may be "low numbers" but it isn't anything to sneeze at.
As we can see with the T72, the Abrams, and a whole array of cold war (and even WW2 Vintage) tanks.... upgrades can keep them relevant for _decades_ New T-14s can and likely will be built for decades to come. So unless you are expecting WW3 some time soon, there is no rush in my opinion.
3:08 The voice crack is real
But hey..at least its better than robot voice eh
so a couple of shot from auto cannon can literally blind the tank as it used cameras and digital sensors to spot targets
so all other tanks, optic and external components are unprotected or only lightly armored, turret armor just protect turret interior.
well most tanks got back up/auxiliary optics which means it can still fight unlike the Armata which has only 1 the top is the commanders but that would be knockout pretty easily
Before talking about this little problems I got a question for Western Bots It Stealth and cant be detected on Radar Its extremely quiet and produce low heat Os its a trouble finding them
Saying an APDS round will always penetrate composite armour but not perforate it and therefore still do damage to the gun is like saying the front 200 mm of a 300 mm RHA plate get's penetrated so there will still be damage to the gun... Unless the round has enough penetration to get all the way through, it will just get broken up by the front layers and the rear-most layers will stop and trap the pieces, and then there is usually still backing plates to stop any remaining shrapnel, so why exactly would you expect gun mechanism damage (of parts that are armoured) "because it's just composite" if there is no actual perforation of the composite armour module?
THIS! The projectile will enter the comosite armor, yes... But beneath the composite armor, there still is the "core-turret" so to say, wich is still made out of relatively thick RHA plates, or designed as a sandwich of inner and outer RHA plates and some material in between. Dont forget, that outer comosite armor often is kind of modular and was added onto the turret, whe the tanks got updated during their service live. So saying a APFSDS round will always damage internal systems or construction, because it will enter the composite armor on impact is definitely not correct
What do you expect from a Russian reviewing a Russian tank? Russian BS.
@@karlhans6678 Did you even watch the video, you illiterate morons? He even shown you example of what happens with several turret hit tanks...
What I would like to know is how (in)vulnerable the T-14 would be against 155mm artillery fire. Both conventional HE and specialist anti-tank rounds like BONUS. Seems like a low-armor value turret might get knocked out more easily if struck by heavy sharpnel. I've seen pictures of T-55s punched through the side armor by 155mm howitzer shrapnel and it makes me think that a heavy artillery barrage might leave a T-14 unit more combat degraded than a "conventional" unit. Thoughts?
wait wtf t55 side get pen by 155mm shrapnel really ? not super close hit ? like 1m away hit ?
@@inouelenhatduy No clue *how* close the hit was, but according to the caption in said photograph, the hole was punctured by shrapnel from a 155mm howitzer shell
@@inouelenhatduy sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf
@TJ Murphy It wasn't that document I stumbled across the pic, though. But either way, if the T14 turret is proof against autocannon fire only, then 155mm howitzer shrapnel would be a potent danger to it. That sort of damage is about what a 30mm autocannon could manage against MBTs.
i think this is the only channel i have ever found besides matsimus's one that has good videos on these subjects! thanks alot very interesting
Fact: it got an Tandem Plate Reactive armor on the Top of its Turret It its final protection against top attack Missile
4:32 Me: Driving. My friend in the cannon: Look i can do multiple 360's! Weeee!
This is an amazing tank. I dont see the reason for the hate.
Yup. People on the internet get too political about shit. This goes both ways btw
How can it be AMAZING when it has never been in combat ?
@@alphaandomega1275 on paper its amazing and technologically superior to almost all mbts. Is the abrams and leopard combat proven for fighting outdated export variants of T-55s and T-72s ?
The only legitimate criticism I can give is It's low production run. I was excited about it because I thought it would spur a western arms race to catch up and we'd get to see all new tanks all over the world. But Nobody is going to take it seriously at the numbers It's being produced.
@@johnharker7194 Well russian economy is suffering from sanctions . Plus the tank is still in testing stage, it would be an idiotic move to start mass production currently. The tank is cheaper than an M1 according to russian claims so it is possible for them to spit them out at an unexpectingly faster rate.
It makes alot of sense to me, you would have to replace it if it got damaged any way, its much faster if its an empty gun with no crew, you can just remove the turret and put down a new one. If all the armor is only need to keep the crew alive, and they are in a central location, just put more armor on this one location only.
I guess it is more like a 'land navy ship' mind set. You see, a modern missile destroyer almost have no armor. A couple of well placed 75mm rounds can take out its targeting radar or something. It's only protection is relaying on technologies to seek and find and kill its enemy first.
How is not secret that turret? How do you recognize?
What I notice of Modern MBTs is that the neck of the tank is exposed. Can make a video about this?
Can't say for all tanks, but Abrams for example have a armored collar around the turret ring.
T-14 turrets always rotate so you know it's deadly! 🤣 Remember when people thought the T-14 specs mattered...
Could you possibly do a comparison between the K2 Panther and T14 since they are both modern designs
After reading all the armchair warriors comments I keep thinking to myself what happens to friendly infantry around these tanks when active protection systems go off?
Same as if no APS was activated, projectile hits tend to produce a lot of shrapnel in a large area, that is why you will never see infantry going in front of or on the sides of a tank, always behind
@@RedEffectChannel Only on approach and initial contact. For example in urban ops, the infantry are actually relatively to the sides to sweep buildings of hiding AT troops who could pop the tank from the flanks. This again though, this is the main difference between Western forces and Russian forces. The west learned during WWII that the biggest threat to armor is infantry and the best tool to use against infantry is other infantry. So western combined arms doctrine in urban locations sees the lighter armor and troops sweeping the tank's flanks and cover the tank's vulnerable areas which is the side/rear/top from emplaced AT fire. The Russians lost so much armor against the Chechen rebels because their doctrine has armor acting independently and away from infantry while the armor is pushing far ahead forward and trying to break through and shatter the enemy so the infantry can clean up and do the work of capturing objectives. The problem was that the Chechens were also trained Soviet soldiers and knew this weakness and exploited it fully.
What about the javelin? It attacks the tank from the top.
Counter measure
@@larimadunaldo9814 Do not see those tubes pointing up. They point forward just under the turret.
dead and multiple barrage missile like missile will kill any tank even it have many counter measures
Afganit isn't able to intercept anything coming from the top, so the tank is completely undefended against Spike, Javelins, hellfire, Vulcano artillery ammo, etc... it's also quite easy to saturate, even more, since the T14 turret is the only MBT turret that would be seriously damaged by the automatic cannon of an IFV.
amazing tank ! :D im kinda hyped for may the 9th what they will present there heard a new model will come or something like this
So far, assuming everything we've heard about the T-14 is true(which it most likely isn't), it seems like it would be survivable but not necessarily be able to take a lot of harsh scrutiny.
Would the t-14 stand a chance against the javelin or hellfire because it up down attack. Because the video that shows it's active protection system, the missile or HEAT shell is coming straight on.
There is ERA on roof
@@murtazamir8706 ERA is less effective against such big warheads.It decreases it's penetration,sure,but when the top only has 20-50mm armor,it doesn't matter.
@@tunnar79 That's why the Afghanit APS provides full spectrum protection against all Anti tank rounds including Top-down ATGMs
@@murtazamir8706 It doesn't,from what I recall.It offers good protection in a 180° arc,but it's a lot less effective against top down attacks and anything coming from opposite of the APS hardpoint.
It can deploy smoke that obscure IR/RADAR/view - thus breaking the lock on.
An interesting video subject would be the Russian Army's battlefield damage recovery units and unit echelon field repair workshops and depots. The higher relative survive-ability of Armata's crew and chasis means that tanks with damaged turrets will be able to return to the rear for service under their own power, reducing the burden on tank recovery vehicle assets, particularly at the extremely dangerous forward edge of battle area.
Inspiration from warthunder No armor means best armor
"no heat projectile is penetrating that turret" - that's a very bold claim...
If you know how HEAT shells work upon impact you might rethink that.
1. This is not game - any tanker is not aiming for a weakspot of another tank. They aim for the mass center - for highest hit possibility of another tank/vehicle. 2. Having in mind point 1 - hiting the gun mantlet is very hard. 3. Composite armor means it consists of different layers. Not that it will always be penetreted. If so - it would be usless. 4. The concept of remote turret is well known and used in many APC or light armored vehicles. So this is the basic princple of it that there is very little exposed.
Unfortunately the gun breach serves as no armour whatsoever, it isn't hardened steel or composite armour, an APFSDS round will go through it like butter, also it will cause more spalling inside the turret, in the t14's case this will rip everything up inside rendering it useless, or killing all the crew in any other MBT
Only the front 180 of the turret has active counter measures. And those defenses can only hit things that are just above level with the tank. It wont stop attacks from a high angle. Like a hell fire missile hitting the tank from the top.
What about the active and passive protection?
Review on Panzer IV:This is big and had thick armor Review on Armata:NO YOU DOING IT WRONG IT'S TO WEAK!
Panzer IV: had thick armor KV-1:don't think so
I think the real problem is over reliance on the afghanit aps. It does not look very impressive as it does not have top attack protection and it also does not have redundant sector protection, meaning if two incoming atgm attack the same sector the second projectile will get through.
So, the huge cover is just to fool people? Well, its *COVER* is blown now!
2:57 Nice picture from IS propaganda lmao (top right logo is the logo of Amaq news agency, the "unofficial" news outlet from IS)
If you are worried about the weak turret, I would be more concerned about it breaking down on parade.
In ur head perhaps but irl it never broke down
@@mbtenjoyer9487 Russian equipment as reliability issues as we know and this is from their tried and tested equipment. These are not tried and tested, so no not in my dreams. For Russia it's fingers crossed and hope for the best.
@@denismorgan9742 in ur head perhaps T-14 didn’t break down it’s the driver that accidentally hit the E brake button So pls if u know nothing stfu
@@mbtenjoyer9487 this is worse, this shows Russian tank crew's incompetence. This shows the Russians in experienced as far as tank's go and tactics and strategies. Thanks for letting the world know of a bigger Russian problem.
@@denismorgan9742 T-14 was still a new and classified tank And the parade drivers only got very simple training He hit the E brakes during the parade training because it’s still training on a new classified tank
One thing that surprised me about the t-14 armata is how big it is. It's taller than an Abrams, which considering how much more of the height is in the hull proportionally, goes against the russian doctrine of low profile tanks.
They learned,the size of a tank is one of the least important things due to modern sights,smart missiles, etc,so a bigger turret is most likely not gonna be a problem.
As someone who's been around tanks a fair bit. There is another question that bears consideration on this turret. How is the situational awareness. i.e I'm attempting to maneuver a tricky portion of tank trail while looking for a potential hide in the terrain ahead. I ask my loader "how is it on that side?" loader "Stop, were about to suck a old roll of concertina wire into this side!" Out come- 5 minutes to cut and or maneuver away from wire V.S. Driver "Commander the tracks not responding on the left!" Outcome- 2.5 hrs removing wire from drive sprocket. Love your videos RedEffect just thought I'd give you a little man in the can prespective.
Gotta love the armata it's a really good tank comin out from Russia. But the Abrams is still my favorite tank :)
Just gota get that price down to boost production.
I go with the merkava Mk4.
Jose Alfredo yea I love the design of of the Merkava all of the versions but the mk4 is quite a nice lookin tank
The M1A2 Abraham can fight to the end. Thick armor, good movement, and long range target by computer.
look if the turret keeps up with the lower hall in a full turn or faster u doing ok if it can not do this it needs to be fixt like u should be able to do 360s in u tank and keep the gun were u want
So basically, all the electronics needed to effectively use the unmanned turret are behind a thin sheet of metal that does not offer any protection against 20 mm / 35 mm autocannon fire? Sure seems like nothing can go wrong here...
Btw the aps provides only 180° protection, for threads coming from other angles the tank has to turn it's turret. But APFSDS is so fast, that the tank couldn't turn it's turret in time.
That's why it most likely has a laser-warning indicator, like the T-90 before it, which slews the turret around automatically when it is being lased, i.e. ranged. Of course, the guerilla in me automatically thinks that using infantry-mounted laser range finders to harass such tanks would be an excellent idea. Make them turn their turrets automatically into inopportune directions... ;)
@@whitescar2 Would you want to be the poor sap flashing a laser pointer at a 50 ton harbinger of death?
@@MonMalthias remote control. You preposition laser designators or use robotically controlled ones to laze the tank and screw with it. We have the basic tech to at least do remote control now.
Loved the part when he was quoting people who always complain on his channel😂
Main weakness of t14 armata is that they are too few to even make an impact the battlefield
The outcome of what a "battlefield"? Do you really think that like the battle of Kursk hundreds of tanks will fight? T-14 is a reconnaissance and commander tank, and not OBT. The T-14 has the best communication and surveillance equipment, it will accompany the Russian OBT (T-72B3 and T-90AM) on the battlefield.
If ever WW3 happens yes Quantity matters because russia will be fighting not only the U.S. but also the whole NATO with their most better advance leopard 2 and Challenger 2 tanks and also in the East Japan, south korea, Australia all major US ally in Asia.
"Tank on tank battles are pretty rare in our days " Me: *facepalm* My conclusion is that if a war came against NATO these tanks will lightly get out of battle
To be fair, if NATO and the Russians fought, both sides would just spam gunships, jets and SAMs while tanks drive around under CAP and try not to get pasted by cruise missiles flying about. Then everyone would agree to calm down since everything had gotten a bit too hot, or someone would launch a First Strike and everyone in North America and Eurasia would die. Except Mexico.
Alpha Numeric Key sounds like M.A.D all over again
Finally somebody confirms what I'm telling from ages! T-14's weakness is every tank's weakness!
ummmm no, most anks have heavily armored turrets. The gun mantle on the T-14 is not the only piece that is not heavily armored.
@@TheEwanMC your cute. no they have not been penatrated by the front I know because I was a tanker in a iraq, and iraqis tried my crew. Im still here.
@@TheEwanMC rear hull, so... the rear of the tank, the weak point of every tank, so already you are full of shit. Side turret, hatches were open with the crew riding up in the hatches, that will get anyone killed, AGAIN you are full of shit. I was in one of the army Units that trained Iraqi army tankers on how to use THEIR NEW M1A1AIMS TANKS. The Iraqi 9th Armored Division fields them in combat all the time, so, your first two little claims that you had to cherry-pick throughout the entire 10-year war was you being dishonest and full of shit your third claim was a straight up lie. you are full of shit you have no credibility and no one should take you seriously in this conversation anymore
I'm an American, an I agree with the no armor is good for the t 14 😂😂😂😀
You are not taking into account the issue that all the defenses are in the mantel surrounding t he turret. The armor on the mantle is so thing as simple jacketed round from an M-16 or AK-47 will punch right through it. This means it is VERY vulnerable to a near explosion. The chances the tank will lose the rest of its defenses as well as its secondary weapons and sights will leave the tank as a vulnerable target. They can not see what they are shooting even if the main gun is in tact and they can not see where they are driving without opening the hatch. The other thing to note is the rear armor and even the back half is VERY lightly armored too (but not as bad as the turret). Understand this tank is wider, taller, longer, hasd a bigger gun, more ammo, and a larger engine as well as more armor around the crew that an M1A2, but is less than 3/4 the weight. Also the active defense only protec about a 90 degree arc in the front of the turret so any hits from the side or rear will ignore this... as well as from the top. Then there is the fact that the M1A2 Sep 3, that will be out about the same time as the T-14 already has a round designed to penetrate their new armor and the M1A3 that is coming soon after that will also be able to take it out quite easily. Add to that that Russia is still struggling with the engine and might turn out using a less powerful engine, at least for a few years, that will greatly effect its performance. Add to that budget cuts do to low oil prices and Russia's limited manufacturing capabilities means there will not be very many of these. They allocated part of their budget that was supposed to be for the T-14 to instead repair and refit a bunch of older T-72 tanks, but with the amount they set aside for each tank I see little to no upgrades happening. It is like their T-90... they do not have that many and the lost several of those in Syria. A good chunk of Russia's military is mothballed and not in fighting condition and they still rely heavily on equipment that is 30-50 years old. Putin's plans to upgrade his military have been scaled back heavily do to cost overruns, manufacturing issues and defects, and massive budget cuts. His plans were based around the high oil prices of 2012 and 2013, but with oil prices being so low they have been cutting spending the last 3 years, not increasing it like he had hoped. While they have some decent technology, they lack the ability to make enough of it to make much difference. What he hoped to have built by 2025 will not even be finished by 2050 at the rates they are going.
Always love your vids 😄
Another thinly armored Russian turret! ROTFLMAO. Practicality Be Damned..... Ivan keeps making the same mistake over and over again.
What other Soviet tank has thin armor?
Armor is next to useless in modern combat, we aren't in ww2 anymore. Today we have armor piercing rockets with up to 2000mm of penetration, there is no tank or warship in the entire world that can survive that kind of firepower once it hits. Only defence systems such as flares and computer software can prevent them from hitting the tank. Today it's about who sees who first.
@@nagantm441 T-55, 62, 72, and T-90.....
@@johnallen7230 so you must have the same complaint about the m60, right? It's turret armor is a joke
Following your vids for over a week now, grt work... Could you check out Arjun mk1 and Mk1a / mk2 tanks from India and if possible could you compare against modern Chinese tank which will be it's natural rival.
great video best t14 video I've seen so far.
I won't be surprised that despite the claims it has no armor and only active protection is hiding one fact. A thin layer of armor can actually be a series of multi-spaced composite armor filled with anti-tank dissipation intersecting plates made out of the same composite armor. More important is what kind of material is used on that tank? Obviously the first answer will be steel but one must keep in mind that the Russians is fully aware of America's depleted uranium armor and Britain's chobham armor panels and plates. I will not be surprised that they may have surpassed both the American and British tank armor material and design specifications and has made it easily mass producible. Composite materials has the highest variations beyond one's wildest imagination, so one must be wary of what one's adversary might really possess.
Main problem about T_14 is being able to mass produce it. Out standing design but weak economy to mass produce it and take it to use effectively.
Main problem for all Russian tanks are the NATO terrorist wich are a problem for entire humanity...
From what i read Russia has mostly abandoned militarization becasue of the Trump presidency...Russia was basicly in Incoming war mode until then...Russia is one of the few Countries in the world that has cut its military annual budget since 2016...
Super tank that Russia cant afford to make. Lol
Russia can afford it, she can't replace all tank to t-14, but she doesn't need it, it mostly commander tank.
Russia never intended to purchase T-14 in mass numbers to replace all existing tanks in service. The mainstay are still modernized T-72 and T-90 with its variants,,,this is kinda the elite version and most importantly a platform for many other vehicles not just tanks.
@@krivdik Russia doesn't need only commander's tank
trololoev Its not meant to be a commander tank, the t-14 will only be sent to a limited amount of of tank divisions (at least for now), probably guard divisions (guard divisions are pretty much the Russian equivalent of the marine corp, basically an elite division).
The Russians have a supertank...really?
Its still easier to knock out the turret/gun on the T-14 than on tanks with better turret armor. APS is not a guarantee against heat either and can be overhelmed too. Its more of a tradeoff, because the lighter turret of the T-14 allows for a heavier and better armored hull which is the best protected hull out of all modern tanks currently.
@Steve Arthur yes but the abrams doesnt employ ERA on the turret currently. Something like a T-90AM or even the challenger 2 has better protection against HEAT on the sides
@@nks406 Abrams utilizes ERA on turret. Look up Abrams TUSK II. Its quite overkill. The way it should be.
@@JohnDoe-rq5bz the TUSK does not use ERA on the turret, only on the hull sides. The turret only has ballistic plates but no ERA.
It looks like a hit or two from an auto cannon will disable the turret, surely it will end it's protective shell and whatever comes next will end the tank. That's the major disadvantage of fragile electronics based protection. You can only stop a single payload. Even the old TOW from 1970' carries enough punch to trigger all explosive armour on that turrets side and smash all optics and most likely jam the autoloader. And that is under the assumption that it was fired in a good weather, no rain or too much dust with metal particles in it or it just kills the tank on fist attempt.
I feel that the T-14 Armata embodies the spirit of the Leopard 1's design principles of no armour to the fullest...
Well it's tricky to call it no armor , T14 has alot of armor but focused where it really matters that is the reason why this design is very smart imo . T14 has probably the best crew protection ever seen on a tank ( while taking full advantage of the reduced weight ) something you can't say about Leopard 1 design !
You should Do a video on the Polish PT91 Twardy!
What for? Only a good joke to laught at.
I was wondering about that myself when I fist read about T-14's features. My first thought was - ok, they had crew protection as a priority number 1 and If the tank is "mission-killed" (in other words unable to continue to fight despite not being knocked out), it's ok as long as the crew is alive and perhaps even able to return home in the hull still intact. But the problem with weak turret is that if it's disabled early, the tank is unable to defend itself and relies only on hull's maneuverability for the escape. In addition, a weak turret simplifies the ways in which one can disable a tank - no longer is a powerful weapon needed. Lesser weapons became suffice for the job. I wonder what experience will the first operational combat use bring. Seems like nowadays, tanks don't often engage in duels - they mostly deal with non-tanks.
Red effect should put out the characteristics of "his version of an ideal tank".
Great deflection. Three years ago, "T14 will bounce all shots", "T14 is question west can not answer", "One T14 could drive from Semipalatinsk to Berlin, nothing German tanks could do about it." Now, "T14 is as vulnerable as every other tank" A mobility kill is a kill, a main armament kill is a kill, a cook off T72 cauldron where scorched tankies get blown out of the hatches, is a kill. There will be no time to depot a replacement turret onto a damaged T14 if the war games that are being played now are right. And the crack about the "Protected against autocannons" thing? Nope. Not 40mm bofors, not 50mm Oerlikon (35mm casehead). So, T14 is vulnerable to western IFV/APC autocannons but western MBTs arent vulnerable to eastern autocannons. And the kicker, the absolute kicker to it all. T14 is not going to be fielded in any numbers. T14 is the same as the AN-94, a media operation to allow engineers and nationalists to stroke themselves. Russia should invest more money on the youtube front, they can make great gainz, they can push back the front lines, they can scorch the enemies comment sections. In future, kinetic war will be for pathetic peoples, real men will fight with youtube videos.
You think that western MBTs aren't vulnerable to Russian auto-cannons? Even setting asside the resurgence of the 57mm caliber on Russian armor (for the moment), even a lowly 30mm will knock out a MBT. The barrel isn't armored. The sights aren't armored. The driver's periscope isn't armored. With 120mm you are talking about 1 shot every 4 seconds. With 30mm you are talking about 200 shots per second. In just 1 second a MBT will lose its ability to shoot, and its ability to see. And if you think 200 rounds isn't enough, then how about air burst rounds bursting into hundreds of fragments each. Oh, and 200r/min is the _governed_ speed. Ungoverned even the 57 mm AU-220M gun can reach speeds of 300r/min. Okay, back to the 57mm which will be armed with airburst rounds, has a stupidly high rate of fire and Russia is already built for tests back in 2017.... Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm anti-aircraft artillery (If the name didn't specifically call it anti-air then by the looks of it most people would think it is just another fire support BMP.) __________________________________ tl;dr You calling out "40mm bofors" and "50mm Oerlikon (35mm casehead)" as capable of defeating the T14 is just the pot calling the kettle black.
@Merkava Mk.4M Windbreaker So... um.... this is the third comment thread in which you posted the exact same reply to me. I'm sorry, but you're just not my type. You're a MBT, I'm a stick figure. it just wouldn't work between us.
@Merkava Mk.4M Windbreaker WOW On the other two threads you only replied with "cringe" but on this one you replied with "cringe and bluepills" *I have so many question.* like, why are you doing this? Why is this thread different to the others? Do your parents know that you are gay? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? Why are you doing this? Will you reply to the other threads if I don't post anything there? This question doesn't end in a question mark. Is the above a question or a statement? Do penguins have knees? What is your mother's maiden name? Are you still reading this or did you top already? Boxers or Briefs? who's on first? Does it bother you that I repeated one of the questions? Did you spot the pun I made? If gender and sex are unrelated, does that mean that "male" is a gender-neutral term? How long does it take for a velociraptor to open a locked door? Have you been watching hidden cup 2? I feel dead inside. Will talking on the internet take away the pain? What is the average income of a Russian troll? Why do we cook bacon but bake cookies? Do you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that we don't know about?
@@komradearti9935 . Currently there are armored shutters on most sighting systems. I agree that having them close automatically would be a logical next step. But those shutters are _thinner_ than the surrounding armor. Good against light shrappenel, but it isn't going to stop a 25mm AP round. 200r/min doesn't *_require_* the use of air-burst to improve hit probability. For the record, a 25mm APFSDS round can penetrate (at 60° from 1000+m away) between 30 and 57mm or RHA, depending on ammo type. 57mm of armor is more than most tanks will have on their sides. So a lowly 25mm can actually kill a tank from the flanks without specifically hitting the gun and sights. and of course 25mm is the old standard. 35mm is closer to the new standard (with more countries tending towards 40mm over 30mm). And both Russia and the US are fielding 57mm and 50mm guns. I went on a bit of a tangent, but the tl;dr is that the armored shutters that will protect the sights from shrapnel isn't going to protect you from an auto-cannon.
T14 paper tiger confirmed. jk
You should go under track of that paper tiger.
If the t-14 Turrent and all modifications on it would fit on a T80 T 72 or T 90 Russia would run out of problems very fast.
So ‘tank on tanks battles being pretty rare these days’ is part of the reason why this MBT’s turret is not more heavily protected? Kinda defeats the purpose - like the rejection of NATO tanks with weaker hull armor being okay because of their (hull down) defensive use is a contradiction of the MBT role
Everything is theoretical, nothing is sound.
Let me just get my T14 out of my garage and test out their claims. We can't just take them at their word, so be better do all of the testing our selves...
@Merkava Mk.4M Windbreaker And yet I give it freely.
Zero people asked for your opinion either.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Are you butt hurt over my statement?
It's a hot mess.
One new Abrams is worth 3 T14 Armatta, and I don't mean cost I'm talking battlefield effectiveness. If Russia wanted to flex it's Tank prowess you would see The T90 as far as the eye can see. I'm not sold on this Armatta. Now the T90 is a beautiful tank .
How do you know if the T14 still hasn't been combat tested?
@@cobalt2361 exactly just that bubba. We have known about the Armata got it seems quite some time now and there are some good ideas that were put into the design but still it hasn't been tested in Syria and Russia up till now has been getting great test runs on many of their weapons platform's, missile systems, ect. Bro I could be wrong but I don't love the design of the T14. I understand that the him is impressive, but that small chassis and tiny turret just doesn't strike fear into my heart like the T90. The Armata better have a few impressive tricks up it's sleeve. If I'm being charged with the task of fighting American crew's in the new Abrams I want a fully kitted T90.
Most people dont get that that Turret is naked, they can put different armour plates on top, like in the Merkava
Good point RedEffect and thanks for your vids. I don't think any new MBT today can take a direct hit to turret of another tank of the same class. And in a war where you are fighting a smaller enemy with older tanks, chances are you have already killed of all their tanks with airpower before your own tanks enter the area. The times with major tanks on tank fighting are properly behind us.
Most couch experts wouldn't agree with you.
@@Manuel_Fal_Conde Good then it is properly not too wrong :)
I think russians drank too much vodka while designing this tank.
*Putin wants to know your location*
Its a huge problem while if the turret gets destroyed the crew may survive but the tank is rendered a useless tractor. An heavy auto cannon would be able to disable the turret maybe even a 50 caliber. Its optics are totally exposed as well. The claim is an unarmored turret is used because its un manned and nothing to protect. While this is true protecting the weapon systems is important too so the tank can stay in the battle.
the T-14B Armata main battle tank seriously needs a manned turret variant . . . it'll have two large turret roof hatches (as in any conventional main battle tank) plus a third roof hatch positioned aft of the forward two primary turret hatches, although at an angle . . . the T-14B Armata main battle tank could do with a raised suspension setup featuring a heavy duty 5.0 in. suspension lift & overall strengthening . . . for improved off-roadability across any terrain . . . state-of-the-art modern day tanks like the T-14B Armata should discard the 12.5 MM co-axial gun in the forward turret section . . . since it's already obsolete & no longer relevant in a rapidly evolving technologically influenced warfare . . .
Russia has no chance against MERICA🦅
Lol
Weird flex but ok