M1TTB | The Armata that never was 

The TTB autoloader was designed, built, and tested by Western Design Corporation in Irvine, CA in the early 1980’s. WDC was acquired by Meggitt PLC many years later in 2007. On my first day of my employment with WDC in October 1983, the team was preparing the brass board version of the machine for a “load-off” competition with FMC to see who would be funded to proceed to the prototype phase - the result of which you see in this highly accurate and factual video. Well done.

As a former M1 Tanker and one who has been interested in the M1 TTB this was excellent content.

M1TTB and M1 Thumper are pretty cool prototypes

I didn't think there was room for another tank channel. Good job.

Another awesome video! It's pretty wild how advanced some of these decade old designs got. Makes you wonder what they are cooking up in RnD nowadays.

I had no idea the M1TTB ever existed. Thanks for the video!

"We don't know much about the T-14, but... the production run was reduced from 2300 to 130..." Bold of you to assume that even a single mission-capable, as-advertised T-14 will ever get built.

T.-14 is actually based on an older design called Object 195, which was started in 80's. So around the same time as M1TTB.

I wish they would take a second look at this concept, especially now that electronics have improved so much since the 80s .

well this was certinly a suprise i had no idea this was even a thing thanks for sharing with me

Holy shit, this reminds me some much of the Swedish design trials of the 1980's and 90's (UDES and Projekt Stridsvagn 2000). I wonder if they both dipped from the same well, or just came to the same conclusions independently.

A video pleasant to watch. Keep on good work!

I think there's a lot to be said for minimizing the profile of the turret, and maybe even getting to shrink the turret basket, but my first thought with the "crew capsule" style of layout is that if the vehicle is moving at speed with the turret significantly to the side, the gunner is going to get a little disoriented (at best) having to focus on a direction that doesn't agree with his inner ear. With the M1's emphasis on crew survivability, I always liked the idea of a bustle magazine in an oscillating turret, but I don't know if they'll ever accept a tank without that fourth crewman.

"The Armata that never was" applies equally to the T-14.

long time no see man, youve improved immensely! good job!

This is was a very informative piece. This is yet another example of how even though the idea didn't take off, you can learn a lot from it still.

M1TTB is a really cool design, now that the costs of its original drawbacks are basically negligible, it might become relevant again.

Very informative! Great work :)

There aren't even 130 T-14's currently: there's only a dozen or so, and most of those are prototypes whose only claim to fame is looking good in parades. With the continually deteriorating state of the Russian automotive industry, it's safe to say the Armata isn't going to be a viable tank for a very long time, if ever. On the issue of the commander and the hatch, the US Army has tried to give commanders better armored protection before in the form of the various commander's turrets that were installed on tanks like the M48 and the M60. What they found was that the increase in armored protection didn't compensate for the massive loss of situational awareness, hence why said feature was no longer present in later M60 models and of course the M1 Abrams. I mean sure the Commander is more vulnerable to getting shot at while looking outside, but that's just the risk you take for the ability to make better judgement calls because you're able to see the battlefield better.

oh, cool! i had no idea this tank was like 5 miles from my house, i think i'll go take a look at it!

Yeah, this is epic. Great video RWF. The thumbnail kinda looks like a videogame screen shot - strange.

Man your videos are super underrated. They are super informative and entertaining!

Even 130 tanks seems by now highly aspirational ;)

"The extra crew member helps with maintenance & makes the tea". Kenneth Macksey & John Bachelor from the book "Tank".

did not know any of it thank you so much well we could have guessed that it was already there in the golden 80s

I think few armies are willing to dispense with the time-honored role of the tank commander; stick his fool head outside the turret hatch to watch out for threats and acquire targets.

I wonder if with current day tech and materials, the TTB would be more economically viable to produce, at least enough to justify using it over the current iteration of the Abrahams which, which is already a beast of a tank. Although with top attack munitions being so popular, the idea of keeping ammo right under the turret in a carrousel arrangement probably makes troops a little bit antsy.

Nice!

It reminds me of a Jordanian design for a auto turreted vehicle on a British hull/chassis. There’s pics on the web & it had a similar turret style

These things be vomit comits cause your propped out on the nose of the tank getting thrown around at maximum leverage from the center of gravity (basically getting tossed around on the end of a stick) while trying to look through a viewer that shows you bouncing around in all the wrong directions as you try and scan with your head fixed front straining to focus on a green black image. This is also why we where laying down driver reclined to keep their heads closer to the center of gravity.

Great video! Who knew..!?

T.-14 is actually based on an older design called Object 195, which was started in 80's. So around the same time as M1TTB. he stayed somewhere in the vastness of Ukraine.

If the US has lots of Funds to build more Auto Loader Tanks and more efficient plans to add a few crew capacity to the M1TTB, it would really make the Future Military Technology in an easiest way like the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer which has a Auto Loader plus maybe in the Future they can actually upgrade, redesign, or replace the M1 & M1A2 Abrams with more effective and efficient Armor, Loading and Targeting systems, and Crew capacity. It was so sad that the M1TTB with Auto Loading system didn't make it to the Modern-Future Warfare, i hope the Government has some plans to restore the Plans of "Tanks with Auto-Loading System".

This autoloader sounds incredible. Did they ever use it for anything else? It sounds extremely valuable. Also the TTB seems like it could be used to fill a different role, as in, not an Abrams replacement. Tank destroyer esc role or something similar, in a modern battlefield equivalent

I'd like to hear from tank commanders on they would feel about not being able to see live and unfiltered. I can't imagine that anything electronic can make up for natural light, live peripheral vision, unpixelated images, etc.

I do like the automation of the turret, and probably gives the crew a great increase in survivability but that maintenance thing seems to me a huge advantage with a 4th crewman. Or at least enough of one to justify a manned turret, though this could be offset with maintenance crew vehicles traveling with them. Also id wonder how easy these tanks main guns are in disabling, like I'm sure normal tank guns are just as easy, but the complexity of the autoloader in the field but cause some serious backlogs in repairs if its damaged or destroyed. Which Ironically would be harder to repair with only 3 crewman vs 4. Either way, its a pretty interesting topic and discussion, I feel like for various reasons, were gonna see both types in service for a very long time.

1:18 I remember times when it was a common joke in Russian-speaking part of the Internet, that in every Abrams tank the loader is black guy named Joe.

looks like the predecessor of the latest Abrams X i suppose

I was this years old when I learned about the M1TTB.

Dont worry guys theyre already working on the OMT as of now theyre still deciding on what concept, at least up until 2023 till they released at what tank theyre gonna developed. All of the concepts were all unmanned turrets

And it appears the push may be on to build the M1A3 as an upgraded version of the M1TTB in the form of the AbramsX.

The T-14 Armata is the Armata that never was.

Honestly to solve the problem of having one crewmember less you could replace the loader with a field engineer instead of fully removing an entire crewmember, maybe it could be better for having someone else in case a crewmember gets killed or maybe for having someone free to use some additional weaponry like a 20mm machinegun, and an autoloader if you are actually willing to spend some more money can be made to load and unload the gun even much faster than a human loader, if a weak fleshy human can reload a 120mm gun in about 3 seconds when speed loading, a strong machine of steel should be capable to just casually doing the same and maybe even faster and while on the move, for making an autoloading system that can easily load the gun on the move i imagine you just gotta make the machinery stronger so it can be more rigid and less affected by external forces and have little to no lose parts hanging around like chains and belts. But well, it also would be hella expensive and also require quite advanced tech which at the time was not available, and nowdays just barely seen, although maybe nowdays the bigger problem is the money rather than the technological advancement itself

I'm watching this, and thinking of the new AbramsX demonstrator. So many similarities

I didn't think the tank called "Tornvagn" would actually exist

For manual loading turret is still the best of its kind compaired to the autoload turret that explode when it hit due to amunition arrangement.

They can probably just add a mechanic as the 4th crew member especially as the various software and hardware systems in place will ensure that it will need a dedicated member for it. In combat, they can probably operate the drones that future tanks will definitely carry or even use ground based radar. Essentially an electronic warfare specialist especially as the widespread use of electronics will ensure that weapons that can replicate the effects of an EMP would emerge. They can probably be also used a scout sometimes, just let the tank bring a motorbike in the back and they can provide some scouting ahead when the armored spear rests for a while. Also he can probably also help the commander with data management as when the commander calls out targets and shit, the extra crew member can input it on like those unified battle interface or something instead of the commander doing it so he can focus on commanding instead of breaking line of sight from targets outside to input some shit.

you should make a video on the M1 Thumper

I think the new Abrams X could be the follow-up of the M1TTB, bit like T14 and Object 299.

Crewmen aren't squishys. Their crewmen. Everyone else are squishys. LMFAO Yeah, I had many hours of good-natured bickering with DAT's, lol.

It would be great to see a tank designed that didn't worry about anything but weight just imagine

the main reason m1 tank has no auto loader is that the round are stored inside special compartment to ensure that explosion not kill crew in case of a direct impact

I first thought its a concept 1b heavy tank at first glance 😂😂😂

The auto loader was used in the Stryker MGS variant. Obviously, it does not work right because the Army ditched the Stryker AGS in favor of the dragoon.

The Armata is the Armata that never was

That autoloader is kinda cool. I also hate how meh Armored Warfare made the TTB.....

Looks like loading speeds of maybe 5-6 seconds but 10 seconds if problems were encountered.That's if nothing including serious goes wrong , and they do. Looks like we dodged a built their.

If they just slapped some armor on the front of the turret so it could still fight if the turret was hit and give it the 140mm cannon that I hear that they're making to replace 120s it would probably be a good replacement for the freebrams

i find it amusing that people keep throwing the term Armata around as if it a real viable armored fighting vehicle. It barely functions for propaganda purposes. Outside of parades or tech demos, T14 has never gotten near combat and there is no reason to expect it to anytime soon.

Suddenly every tank with Unmanned Turret is "Armata"

US to Russia be like: Haha I am 42 years ahead of you

So, uhhhh.... GAIJIN WHEN

regarding autoloaders - why can't they use scaled up firearm actions (like a spring magazine and a rotating bolt)? Is it due to the size of the shell?

i think we see the aspects of the M1TTB in the AbramsX

should look at the layout of the new m1x

the united states hates the idea of keeping rounds in the cupola, they kept the abrams because theyre concerned about ammo burn situations, the abrams ammo is kept in a armored safe

it would have been extremely expensive in the 80's and 90's. but today, with computers, cameras, network etc extremely inexpensive, and microscopic size. These fully automatic turrets maybe economical. also, single robot arm will be able to manipulate roading and discarding the shells.

I heard rumors about the possibility of this from a friend who was a APG for a long time he's got some interesting story's and pictures most of which I don't believe he's supposed to have

Now I know where the Armata concept came from

They should have contracted OTO-Melara for the gun and autoloader.

T-14 the Armata that never was.

Well i guess its a different set of problems riddling the T-14. They seem to have some issues with engines, but that's a pretty minor problem, only interfering with scedules and production infrastructures. And P.Infra. most likely is the biggest thing, as a lot of systems has to be switched from global best-price-supply to domestic production, so T-14 can't be targeted by sanctions anymore. Still it is the first luxury tank of RU with its cost of around 7 million, and that need a lot of chnges to the whole production setup & team.

warthunder need this to the game

based

hey red if i may ask do u think the us uk and france and germany will be going this route a remote controled turret or do u think they will not because it has been bothering me for some time since i first saw the t14 armata

hmmm... sure turret is narrow from front but whole tank is higher. its not really much smaller profile is there?

the first prototype is the most powerful laser tagger in the world

1:18 this is loader's face turned black from the gunpowder ... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The M1TTB looks more like the Swedish paper-tank, the Bofors _Tornvagn._

With modern CNC and robotic handling equipment, someone would think and believe that the armor vehicle could be produced, overhauled and modernized a lot faster. since the turret is cast with the exotic armor added afterward why can't the plates be curved?

In my opinion Autoloaders are great but only for smaller calibers

The autoloader on a US tank is slated for a comeback.

USSR had its own share of turretless tanks, so it's hardly influenced by TTB at all.

I don't think the TTB was meant to use flat screens, you can make the electronics needed for a turret less tank much smaller and cheaper today, maybe the next generation western tanks will follow this route again.

I believe the next tank the U.S. deploys will be unmanned.

Armada seems to not get the engine working. Thus, need to put a bigger one but need to redesign the tank or create a new engine from scratch

Its not a real tank if NovaLogic didn't make a game out of it.

And yet, while its lack of adoption in 1980 is entirely understandable, its not at all clear why a Mark 2 Autoloader is nowhere to be found on the Abrams today, 40 years later, in a climate thats rapidly shifting towards the icy cold war again.

The US will likely build this now. Albeit, the tank will look rather different, given more modern technology and manufacturing technology and techniques.

T-14 has such low numbers not because the system is unreliable but more so because it's expensive and Russia still hasn't built the factory intended to build the tank Russia still only has the 30 pre production models they got back in 2015.

The gun is in the turret, without it the tank is useless With no crew in the turret, it could be smaller and more heavily armored for less weight

the number of armatures is equal to the number of mouses

"Mk1 eyeball" lmaoo

I'm more surprises they managed to use that kind of method to load 120mm without bursting the fragile casing that in some cases, self destroy even with man handling.

8:29 the french solved this by having mechanics available to assist in the maintenance

I've always though the T-14 was nothing more than some experimental turrets that had been dragged out of storage and placed on hulls to give the illusion that Russia was fielding a new tank. That we developed a very similar vehicle 40 years ago and did not bring it to production just proves the point. No way the Russians took 40 years to copy the TTB and no way reducing the crew from 3 to 2 increased the ability to operate the vehicle in the field.

just look at soviet Object 477.

Does AbramsX is a reincarnation of M1TTB

Bofors tornvagn anyone? Or Concept 1 b?

The Japanese learned this lesson in the zero. When American planes entered the theater that could turn with the zero and had much heavier armor, the zero's became a non issue!