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

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 is the most expensive ricer tank of all time.

lmfaoooo🤣🤣

Hahahah

Evidence!?!? 😂😂😂

Daaaammmmmmnnnnn

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

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!!

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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...

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.

It's smoking on purpose to deflect infrared !

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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! 🤔😁

😂💯

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

yeah.. better watch redeffect videos. more accurate

I think LazerPig is a source now...

@@gerfand a very wrong source

@@ASlickNamedPimpback RU-vidrs 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.

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

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

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.

Veri funny man

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.

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.

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.

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'

I swear i was about to say that 😂

Russia lost 2.000 tank but they still have 10.000 more.

It doesn't answer its titular question though

watch lazerpig videos about the t14

Lol.

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)

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

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.

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

What would these corny dudes know about battlefield realities?

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) 😁

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.

*The important conclusion therefore is that the pace of per capita economic development in Soviet Russia was practically the same as in modern Russia.* *There is a difference though. Despite the fact that per capita GDP growth rates were approximately the same and GDP grew faster from 1945-1960, a contemporary Russian is **_twice as rich_** as his/her counterpart in 1960.*

@@nzer57 I don't follow how your conclusion flows from the preceding discussion? Please explain. Re: relative richness over that period, I would have thought it would be a bit more than double? Doubling in 60 years from 1960 to 2020 is only a growth rate of 1.3% per annum. I don't know what information there is on GDP growth in USSR and Russia.

I wonder if they fixed their transmission.

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.

Almost certainly not. Even if it was as good as claimed, Russia lacks the money in order to produce more than that. Its kinda like with the SU 57. Even if it was as good as they claimed, they're in such low numbers that its not gonna matter.

@@invidatauro8922 Exactly. The US could make 20 of the most advanced tanks on earth with incredible abilities. But that 20 would be half the defense budget for R+D.

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 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.

And? I not see how this Himars and Javelin help Ukraine? Ukrains soldiers love kill people in city this Himars, not soldiers.

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..

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

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... 🙃

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

Always on Action outside their intended Purposes

человек это слабое звено. это хрупкий элемент танка, занимающий много места, со хрупкой моралью, который может быть легко сломан, чем электроника или иные механизмы. что он сделает, если заклинит башню или разломает прицельное приспособление или порвет гусеницы? это не вторая мировая война, где можно было инструментом и молотком починить танк, сейчас такую сложную поврежденную машину нужно вести на ремонтный завод

And america copy the unmanned turret and auto loader 😂(abrams x)

​​@MinhNguyen-hz2zn The US did it first with the TTB. Also, Abrams X is a Proof of Concept. Not an Actual replacement for the M1A2

​@@MinhNguyen-hz2znFrance did it and actually had on operational vehicles long before anyone else did

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

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

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

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

​@@orbitalair2103 igor cope

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

​@@orbitalair2103 😂😂😂😂😂😂