@@kgdmen yes cuz it will takes weeks & months to bring those hardware in 1 country thousand kilo meters away to Ukraine, all the process it needs takes a lot of time. but of course you didn't use your brain that much to understand this.
Ahh, yes. The famous T-14 Armata. The first (and most likely only) example of a new class of tanks: MPT ("Main Parade Tank"). The tank that is SO good, that Russians never use them, just to give their opponents a fighting chance!
And how long coming was that F35 Joint Strike Fighter, again, please remind me? 22 years! The Armata took 9 years of development and has been in regular production for the past 2 years. that’s less than half the time it took for the F35.
@@Mortablunt The F-35 is the bleeding edge of fighter technology and is at the forefront of fighter aircraft design and capabilities. The T-14 is a T-80BVM with an Ali Express body kit. The two couldn't be more radically different.
Russia does not want this to be an all-out war. Russia has said this is a special military operation. If it goes to war in Ukraine, don't expect Nato's weapons to defeat it
@@johnnyjericho8472 no, we watched direct drone footage of one getting destroyed, full clip is out there if you actually do some digging. lets talk about dropping the vdv onto hostomel airport with no optics :P
Quite funny, they recently had a tour through the factory where the T-14 was being produced over there in Russia. It showed a few shots of the factory production line. There was a similiar tour/interview through the exact same factory back in 2017/2018. People on the internet cross referenced both tours and saw that the entire production line had not been moved since 2018 - the latest tour with the tarp/wheels/ensembly/moveable stairs being in the exact same spot as a few years prior. Ever since the 2014 sanctions on russia they have not been able to produce more T-14's when stock ran out for their optics and other high quality and expensive parts for this tank.
It is a shame. Well sort of. Love the concept of building a solid chassis, remote control turret, and leaving room to upgrade to a heavier caliber. I wonder if putting the engine in the front would be better. Better crew protection and balancing from what I understand. Then again probably raises thermal signature when you don't want it. I think 360 active defenses, thermal systems to hide from IR, optics, and a place to land an charge their own recon drone is the future of Tanks. Seems like armor is just not beating the advances in weapons. Also having a huge supply of electricity for silent running and hiding IR should be a priority.
I think the problem is more the production line itself. All T-14s we see are essentially hand-built technology demonstrators to generate foreign interest in fully developing it and a building a production line. If no foreign buyer signs on to pay the first mover costs of setting up the factory we likely aren't going to see any series production of the type. This is even more complicated now as sanctions severely limits Russia's access to high quality automated tools for the unbuilt factory line plus the immediate need to replace large quantities of tanks lost in the war causing them to invest even more into current production models and new upgrade packages for older types.
@@rwaitt14153 Yeah Russia really screwed up with manufacturing. Glad the US and allies are looking into their manufacturing basis for weapons. You simply cannot make some components without a huge chain of suppliers who specialize in doing X for those to make Y which goes into Z. Wonder how many companies are involved in an F 35. Chips are obviously the big one. ASLM, TSMC, Carls Zeiss(spelling a german mirror manufacturer) are just a handful off the top of my head to make the newest chips.
If Russia ever fields the damn things, we'll find out pretty quickly. There's no end to the amount of systems that could wreck any tank currently in production, and Ukraine currently has most of them deployed.
For those wondering, the account above me is a bot, they didn’t even bother giving it a proper username or pfp. D-day and Ardennes veterans? The only division in both the British and US armed forces that served in both korea and either of those two battles they mentioned was the 2nd Infantry division, the unit of Task Force Smith was comprised of elements of the 25th Infantry division, not the 2nd. And either way they were assigned to conduct a rearguard action, which meant you were delaying the enemy forces and plan to retreat, if anything they ran too late since they were supposed to delay the North Koreans and not fight them so no they were not the veterans you were talking about they were rather unmotivated and underfunded troops of 540 men DELAYING 5000 North Koreans while having no tanks of their own so running away is nothing worth laughing about Anyways I appreciate the learning opportunity that this comment provided me despite it obviously being typed under 30 seconds and posted without any fact-checking or spell-checking, evident by other low-effort comments this same account posts. They are using emojis and all caps to bring maximize emotion and minimize facts which is a common misinformation tactic as info is easy to check, but emotions are easily manipulated and often emotions are stronger than facts.
I mean to be fair you barely faced any T72s seeing as almost 90% of the Iraqi tank force were far older T models and even then they also used far far outdated rounds since the soviets didn't share any of the modern ammunition used on the T72 and the T72s there were, were mostly all Iraqi made and used tank sights from the 40s, barely any were soviet madeand
@@nicholasbrown668 You're absolutely right. My unit's vehicles were unable to keep up with the armor. This was fine in Germany, where the battle plan was for an orderly retreat, but the lightning advance was just too much for them. So by the time we saw any Iraqi equipment, it was in pieces and on fire.
The modern day MiG 25. Something that Russian propaganda pushes and insists they have numerous examples of ready for combat… yet something that is never seen in conflicts despite Russia needing every last piece of armor they can get right now. It likely only exists in very few numbers and likely isn’t nearly as good as they say it is.
It is not necessary because Russia/Soviets have not been involved in any major conflicts for a long time. The kind of weapons that are more in production and demand are things like RPGs,atgms,ak47s and sam systems for countering US insurgencies and wars....
@@jont2576 if they don’t need it then why are they sending tanks into Ukraine that were obsolete in the 1970’s? Do the 1970’s era tanks do better at resisting a Javelin missile hit? Because the newer ones like the T-90 sure as hell don’t seem to do very well. You don’t normally add statistical armor to a tank that supposedly is impervious to modern handheld anti tank weapons yet we are seeing tons of hodge podge cage armor welded to tanks. The cage won’t resist a javelin hit or any sort of modern tandem charge hit at all… so it’s strictly there for helping resist older shape charges like rpg-7’s. Why do they need to add cages to help resist an rpg-7 if the tank is supposed to be pretty much impenetrable against modern dual charged warheads?
@@vsGoliath96 with its prestigious and lengthy record of actual combat service? Oh, wait… it has barely ever seen any combat and has never actually seen air to air combat like it was meant for… let alone air to air combat against another modern fighter jet designed for air superiority. Let’s not mention the fact that there are 11 serial examples of the Su57 in existence. Well… there were 11 serialized examples. Pretty sure there aren’t 11 anymore though. Once again… has a lot of propaganda behind it yet no actual proof to back it up. Nor can they actually hope to build enough to consider it the backbone of their aerial superiority program.
LazerPig did an amazing deep-dive into the T-14 Armata just a few days ago.. heavily recommend a watch if for nothing else than to give a better cultural context and armored warfare know-how.
@@adam346 I also refer to Perun as the God Emperor of PowerPointkind If you haven't seen his videos, they are some of the best military logistics analysis PowerPoints in the world
@@LuvLikeTruck I watch his as well, stumbled onto them fairly early and have been keeping up every sunday... now if only the hognissiah can keep a decent schedule or releasable content but he has more issues than "what can I discern from what is happening" and epic marketing to worry about.
The biggest issue facing the T14 is the thermals and cameras it needs to perform like a modern tank aren't made in Russia. They were buying them from France before the war, but sanctions have made them incredibly difficult to get. The only ones they have were already in the country before the war. I think they're using limited stocks to upgrade alot of older tanks rather than build a small number of T14s.
Those thermals are actually French Gen 2 thermals; which are actually available on the open market and actually pale in comparison to some modern drones that a civilian with $1000 dollars could buy. So even the systems Russia was using were already phased out of France's military years ago.
@@strategicperson95In recent times there have been optics that surpassed French sights that are domestically produced in Russia... They're incredibly costly, though near unmatched worldwide
Apparently this thing is about as fearsome and reliable as their Aircraft Carrier. Another paper tiger from the nation that created the Potemkin village.
The only difference being that there are more Russians involved in trying to capture Bakhmut. But like the T14, it still hasn't worked out as the Russians intended......
Guys, Russia has already brought to the front an armored vehicle that was released in 1950 and has been in warehouses for many years. Forget the red menace from James Bond
@@Nachomansupreme Every nation is constantly looking for a new tank, but for most of them it's too early to be shown. But such projects like Abrams X and Panther are already publicly known as well.
@Meat Salad Maybe. However, how many Armatas have been produced so far since production started in 2015/2016? So far, not even 40 low quantity production tanks have been delivered. In the first production run of the M1 the US produced 110 in six years. If I take 2016 to 2022 for Russia, it's not even a third of that. So... either sanctions are worse than Russia's would admit or there are serious production problems. And before you're going to say: you don't know what you're talking about. Educate me with some facts and not with empty one liners. Prove you're no state backed Russia troll but an actual person who wants to actually enlighten people. Edit: spelling
@@jackkurze2618 I agree plus wanna add why is Russia so keen on selling their latest high tech weapon system? Because they dont have the money to produce it without outside investment. USA dont sell F22 even so countries certainly would buy them. You sell good stuff but not your best stuff. You only do that if you are really desperate.
Lazerpigs video gives a good idea how bad this thing really is :D Technically same engine that the good old "Tiger" had, ultra-unreliable, consumer electronics, non-existent active/passive protection, no EV capability, no alternatives if the video feed bonked out. He said it's beautiful nickname "The alibaba tank"
I couldn't find anything about the engine being related to the Porsche engine. Not that I wouldn't believe it. Maybe I should go back to LPs sources....
The dichotomy of the T14 is that it’s a tank that’s focused on crew survivability. This was a very different philosophy for the Russian Army considering the design of its previous vehicles. The technology in the tank isn’t anything that can’t be put in or is already present in modern western tank designs. The way that the Russian Army deploys their tanks in the Ukraine shows very clearly why they need to increase crew survival. The biggest problem though with this tactic is that it would take a higher number of tanks produced since the surviving crew will need a replacement tank for the entire concept to work.
No. Russians just need to stop wanting to be liked by others. Russians need to stop listening to other people's opinions, ignore opinions about themselves. Russians need to start feeling sorry for their own people, stop feeling sorry for strangers. Russians need to take an example from the United States, democratic bombs, double standards,........... Then it will be possible to drive a t34 from the time of 1945, which will be enough for all needs.
@@CMDRFandragon "It is better for everyone to think we are so inept as to put a driver completely unable to drive the tank into our newest top of the line tank at the moment of its unveiling in a major public parade which caused it massive public humiliation than to have people think the tank breaks down" Real Vatnik logic
@@MsZeeZed Well, I mean, the parking brake being set would explain why they couldnt even tow it and it just sat there. No doubt theres propaganda everywhere, but idk, a set brake seems logical in that instance. Otherwise they coulda at least towed it away.
"Look at my new Wunderwaffe, it will be so great and overwhelming, it will strike fear in the heart of our enemies." And there won't be enough to make a difference. 😁
Indeed. It must surely have come as an earth shattering reality check to Putin, to discover his all conquering, invincible/unstoppable army actually isn't. The humiliation really will have kept him awake at night. This is the army Putin claimed could have boots on the ground in 6 European Capital cities within 48 hours. The only way I see that happening is if he opens a string of footwear outlets in those cities. Putin clearly overestimated both his own capability, and that of his army, many times over.......
The idea of using a universal chassis is great to simplify maintenance and repairs. If you have a broken down tank, you can just swap out the broken part from something less important like an APC. And I like having the tank not be just one cramped interior space, but, as you said, “we’ll believe it when we see it”
There have been several prototypes like this in the west. With both 2 and 3 man crew with fully automated turret. But the idea have always been abounded. I don´t know why, but i kind of think when some of the project have been fairly well developed, still have been totally aboundand. Its almost like there is a not obvious drawback that they don´t want to talk about. Of cause IFV regularly have unnamed turrets. My guess is that one of the issue is ammunition handling. For instance. Archer sort of have a unmand turret, but it can only shoot 21 shells.
@@matsv201 The Pima IFV has an unmanned turret. Works well. Puma had some software issues with its network centric software which shares targeting and sensor data across other pumas and infantry but the turret works well. Both Abrams XM1 and Panther KF51 can withdraw the crew into the hull. Lots of good ideas in T14. Some will be out of date before fielded such as the APS which offers frontal arc protection only.
Simon, you realy need someone who speaks russian when your team does the research for the videos. There are a number of very interesting materials about T14 in russian writen by their war experts. They explain in detail all the problems with this tank. Like the completely new engine design that cannot be repaired in the field. And cannot even be changed now because the T14 was built around the new engine and gear box. No spare part for the tank because it has to many new part that you cannot just take from older tanks. The radar that is so powerful that it actually makes this tank a very easily identifiable target. And the list of its fault goes on and on and on...
That last part is pretty interesting. You don't hear about powerful radar being a detriment to anything but submarines. Guess there is such a thing as too much power. Either that or the Russians really think the tank is invincible and that that is not a problem (which of course nothing is)
@@EngineerOfChaos Having a massive radar sig could make these things incredibly easy to locate with EWAR assets, or if they give off enough radiation could even make them targets for HARMs or similar, which is absolutely hilarious to me.
@@anxietygamingactual6554 Is there a safe limit for radar energy that would make it undetectable in the field? My understanding was that modern sensors can see any practical radar, big or small.
@@jmi5969 There is no "safe" limit for radar power that would make it undetectable. There's only how much risk you're willing to take to get a scan. Imagine you're out at night playing tag, or hide and seek, or whatever, with a friend, and your friend has a flashlight to search for you with. There's no point at which you switch from being 100% sure that there's nothing there, to being 100% sure your friend is there. If they're far away, you might see a pinprick of light or maybe some general brightness. it might be your friend, or it might just be moonlight reflecting off a shiny rock or something. As the flashlight gets closer, and it's more obviously different from the environment, you become more sure that it actually is your friend with the flashlight. Radar works the same way. It's not a binary yes/no thing. It's, how sure are you that signal is a radar and not just random environmental noise. There are strategies you can use to reduce the chance that your radar is detected, for example, quickly hopping frequencies so that RWRs have less information to work with, but those strategies have their own counters, for example, modern RWRs can look at multiple frequencies simultaneously, so a frequency hopping radar would be noticed. If you're operating the radar, there's no way to know for sure whether or not your signal can be detected or not. You'd have to evaluate your expected opponent's capabilities, balance that with how important it is to get a radar scan of the situation vs, for example, just searching with passive sensors like IR, and then make the call on a case by case basis.
@John Jackson surely a relatively cheap, highway takeoff (option), reliable plane would make an interesting video. Ukraine has also asked for them I believe. To add to the reliability part: it's low maintenance too, about 6000 euros/hour instead of 18000 for f-16 or 25000+ for the f-35.
If you're going on tank concepts do a video on the abrams x, from my knowledge they have exhibhited a working prototype ( or working components for everything) but it's not going into production because it's not yet required. (From what I understand they mostly did this to prove that they could actually build a tank beyond the capabilities of what the Russians even imagined)
With a remotely controlled tower with no crew, it would require advanced electronics that Russia is not capable of producing. What would this project look like if it used Western components?
@Sandro Akabane I don't know much, but apparently the US looked into a tank with a...remotely-operated turret...and the 3 man crew in an... armored capsule in the front hull... In the 90s. T-14 is so revolutionary guys!
@@TheSchultinator I have seen the Abrams X project with a remotely-operated turret and the 3 man crew in an armored capsule in the front hull In the USA. I believe that this type of project has a good chance of becoming a reality in the West much sooner than in Russia. Russia has built some T-14s, but the practicality must be very poor due to the lack of advanced electronic technology.
A nice little pipe dream Putin once had, when he used to believe he had the second best military in the world. Before he discovered his people actually had a magnificent fleet of mega-yachts.
Back when we were locked away in our intelligence modules with nothing to do but hone up on available fascinating info. one of the things we came across again and again on new Warsaw pact equipment is not combat or production information but will it make it through the May day Red Square test. In the back streets were lined up recovery vehicles which in the Soviet days these even included teams of draft horses to haul embarrassments "out of square". They were more reliable than the tractors and cranes which also broke down. There was an old saying that Russia runs on Alcohol and when that runs out, nothing moves. As can be seen it is that in Russia the only thing that has changed is the appearance of change.
You can't destroy that which doesn't exist. It's a 200 IQ move by the ruZZians. In all seriousness, this Russian military robot is more impressive than the T-14. Boston Dynamics has some serious competition : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P_CDu1hYXxk.html&ab_channel=GrunGlue
Hiya, it has probably already been pointed out, but the BMPT Terminator is built on the T-72 hull. Just count the roadwheels of the vehicle at t9:52 and you'll clearly see that it is a T-72 hull, with only six roadwheels, compared to the Amarta, which has seven. There almost certainly will be an Amarta variant of the Terminator (designated the BMOP), but these have yet to see the light of day, especially in Ukraine.
@@alexdunphy3716 Thanks for this. It has been a while since I served, so my vehicle identification is a bit rusty. Used to be that you could pick a T-72, but the glacis plate, but now everything has changed with ERA and whatnot.
@@barlauch9292 it depend on wich military region they are sent if they belong to the central military districts in don't think that they woul be deployed in Ukraine
The maximum seen at once has been 7, at the introduction parade. There has been extensive promo footage produced over the years. If more had been built, they wouldn't have be shy about showing them.
After this piece of equipment was tacked on to the end of the Age of Tanks documentary I have been curious to learn more. Once again Simon reaches into the knowledge-craving centers of my brain and extracts exactly what I didn't even know I wanted. Keep it up, crew of the Good Ship Whistler.
That's a good netflix documentary. I don't agree with the Iraqui commander's assesment there that tanks are obselete, as Ukraine used it in their counter offensive last year which won back lots of land.
@@shaider1982 agreed. Russophiles always have paper thin excuses like "the domestic models are better" but the Russians rarely get better use out of them. It was the same with the T34: the Russians got curbed stomped when they didn't have a tactical edge to tip the balance in their favor and after the war they dumped the tanks on the open market and in allied countries and when those got shit canned in the rare occasions they faced other tanks there were people making the same excuse then, so those were mainly used to fight rebels and protestors. Doesn't help that ruddia consistently lies about all their equipments specs and things almost never performe as claimed
I heard that the reason the Armata stopped was because the driver accidentally activated the handbrake and didn’t know how to deactivate it because they weren’t properly trained on how to use the tank. Which is equally funny 😆
You actually knew the reason, the first westerner I've seen with knowledge of this. He was a conscript by the way, they don't have access anymore only commissioned soldiers do since the incident.
@@trevortaylor5501 you really think they would give such precious high tech weapons to the hands of a conscript? It is an obvious cover for technical defect. And an early prototype are bound to have those.
@@nihalbhandary162 Yes they would give these tanks to conscripts for a parade...why not? FFS the mobilised soldiers have been seen training on the newest mods of T-90M. There was no defect, a UVZ official walked to the tank, released the brake and off it went on its own power.
I just realized that this channel has yet to do a video on the M1 Abrams. Considering we'll probably see them in Ukraine this year that would be an interesting video. I heard the development was a bit of a mess (shocking I know).
@@davidelliott5843 I wouldn't expect highly classified materials to be sent to a foreign country that isn't even technically an ally. However, depleted uranium is far from classified, and Russia uses it themselves (same with the Chinese). Ukraine likely won't be getting the most modernized versions of the M1 Abrams, but that doesn't change my belief that it would make an interesting video for the channel.
I still think Ukraine wanting them is a mistake. They need a hell of a lot more maintenance than other tanks and a lot more specialised maintenance at that. The M1 is a great tank, no doubt, but it's not that much better than other designs and I don't think the increased pressure it will put on Ukrainian logistics is worth it.
Does it have an ejection seat like the T-72? It always makes me smile when I see that little Russian fella flying through the air. Its just a shame they dont issue the tank commanders parachutes.
Most of the turret is a mix of dust cover and shaping to make it harder to spot the tank - the actual mechanicals take up a lot less space. The T-95 and the US equivalent test tanks are good examples of roughly what you will see underneath (without all the additional sensors and components being mounted).
The A-85-3 fitted to the T-14 Armata is a turbo diesel engine. The only Russian tank fitted with a gas turbine (similar to the American M1 Abrams) was the T-80.
Which probably is a mistake. Diesel is pretty good, it is easier to transport and has more energy per quantity. That's why the german tanks use diesel.
Believe it or not, it actually is a Russian made reversed engineered engine,from the engine of the WW2 Porsche Tiger tank. Yes the notoriously unreliable engine. I think it also be hard to also point out that every Russian tank, except for some T-80 and 64 models, are actually using engines that are based on the same one used on the Bt-7 and T-34 series of tanks from WW2 as well.
You're like old market women here. Any tank is being developed for a long time, then they get rid of children's sores, then they are modernized. Many options have to be abandoned, because the concept is changing, the situation is changing, the reality is changing. Why should it be any different with the T-14 tank? Armata, first of all, is a base, a basis on which it is possible to create new machines of different types in the future and modernize for a long time. In my opinion, due to the aggression of Western countries, today it is impossible to introduce new equipment like the T-14 into the troops, today it is more relevant that we can operate and maintain.
There is a fundamental flaw with the T-14; If the remotely operated turret breaks, there’s (to my knowledge) no manual controls. In manned turrets, there are manual traverse and elevation cranks, and a backup telescopic sight if the electrics fail. In the T-14, there’s no real way to manually control the turret if something fails.
@@archersfriend5900 Its like what happened with T-44. It was ready for production, but the already fine-tuned production line for T-34 was of more importance. Right now the role of fine-tuned production line is given to T-90M
The tank with an engine descended from the famously unreliable engine of the Tiger P? The engine that was developed into a pumping engine that was a commercial flop due to unreliability and directly developed from that pumping engine?
@@HorstEwald It absolutely does NOT have a gas turbine engine. It has a copy of a copy of the Porche 212 engine. It has an x cylinder configuration and no other engine will fit it.
And the Kremlin immediately switched the bullsh*t machine on, and claimed it was a planned demonstration of towing a military vehicle. Isn't it odd that after decades of Red Square parades, they decide to do a towing demonstration? It's the old commie reflex kicking in. Never admit to any sort of failure or weakness, even if the evidence jumps up and hits you in the nuts, and is there for all to see.....
Another problem for the T-14 is that it would be *super* emembarrassing to lose a tank that costs several million $ to an ATGM that costs about $250k or a drone that costs even less. Particularly since Russua desperately needs foreign buyers for the T14.
Each tank in the world cost several millions of dollars and can be destroy by atgm or drone or artillery they are not made from vibranium from wakanda they are just tanks made of steel
There's some healthy debate about the future of Main Battle Tanks in general given their increasing cost and the wider availability of current gen anti-tank systems. RU-vidr (and former anti-tank infantryman) Ryan McBeth refers to it as the "Age of the Suicidal Microchip." Better man-portable weapons systems, drones, and increasingly precise long-range artillery mean that soon the MBT may no longer be the point of the spear when it comes to ground combat, so why invest all that money in them?
@@lukedodson3267 tbh, I’m someone who works in the microchip industry and I’m not particularly aware of any major advancements in chip technology in the last 20 years. Some shits gotten smaller, and a bit cheaper, but there haven’t been any new features or technologies that have blown me away. We spend most of our intellectual capacity on internet software systems, not microchips, and believe me theres a massive difference
If they're struggling (and they really are) to adequately maintain current armoured vehicles then I think that the development of new MBT's will be on the back burner
Our media has really done us wrong by not mentioning the numbers involved. One fourth of Russia's military, without drafting, is a larger number of people then Ukraine's entire adult population. Defense contractors gotta make that cash though.
I would like to clarify there are no BMPT Terminator 3's at all in the Ukraine it is only the BMPT Terminator 2's which are based off of the T-72 series tanks currently fighting in the Ukraine. Otherwise great video
No there is only one BMPT "Terminator" which uses a modified t-90 hull. Then there is the BMPT-72 which is the BMPT turret fitted to a t-72 hull which was marketed as an upgrade option to countries who operate old t-72s. Sometimes BMPT-72 is called "terminator 2" by mistake
@@alexdunphy3716 so the BMPT uses the T-72 hull. the T-90 is a T-72B3 hull with a different turret and the BMPT-2-T72 use a upgraded T-72 hull. but lets not argue semantics
We poles were making fun of our own PL-01 which was just a concept, that it is so stealthy that noone knows where it is... But damn... Armata is actually a existing tank that noone knows where it is.
A combat ready model has never been confirmed to have gone faster then 30ish MPH and didn’t mention that the engine is very unreliable and a design dating to WW2. Which is important since the entire tank was built around the small tank engine. It can’t fit any other engine without extreme design changes. Laserpig has a pretty good video on this tank.
Hi Simon, I think the Armata can be put into the same category as the Russian SU-57 Felon. India threw $$ at Russia as a co-developer but when they did the math and realised it wasn't as good as advertised they pulled out. I think this tank is the same. Even if it and the SU-57 were as good as Russia claims how could they build them with all of the sanctions imposed by the west. They cant even build modern cars anymore.
David Palmer - The Armata should have become Russia's main MBT and between 2015-20 2000 should have been produced. In reality, 2023 only prototypes exist.
1. Russia could never build modern cars, without western input. 2. SU-57 was a failed attempt to generate foriegn income 3. Even without sanctions, Tussia does not have the capacity to build modern anything
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 riiiight. You mind providing some evidence of its actual use in Ukraine? I think you won't and are simply a lying Kremlin bot.
Well, there was recent news that T-14 was getting sent to Ukraine. Can't wait to see it get towed away by a random farmer with his tractor. Bet you NATO would love to see the insides, assuming they don't already know everything about it.
@@CharliMorganMusic It's not, Russia is capable of producing modern battle tanks, not sure why anyone would think they can't. How effective they will be is another matter. Unknown until Russia deploys them.
The star of Russian ingenuity. The tank that had to be towed out of Red Square when it was introduced. I bet they will burn just as well as the T-90 in Ukraine.
There are aspects of this vehicle that are good and innovative like the armored crew capsule and unmanned turret. But it still has its roots in a 90s project.
Every significant concept was tried in previous development tanks. Most were obvious but simply "before their time". The idea of a sealed crew capsule has been repeatedly rejected because of poor situational awareness. It could happen someday, but only with improved sensors. Multi-spectral integration could make a virtual view superior to a bare eyeball. Integrating active and passive radar, thermal, UV, laser return, edge enhancement and shape detection, computational object modeling etc would be a game changer. But the Russians are the last ones with the technology to make that happen. Thinking beyond the detailed technology, if everything is based on sensors, what is the value of a in-hull crew? The concept literally designs itself out of a purpose. It make sense with traditional manual control, but that is a constraint that wasn't questioned.
No, you mistake it's key, secret feature: An advanced cloaking device, rendering the tank undetectable to enemy soldiers, drones, IR, Russian tank crews, overhead satellites, physical reality, thermal cameras and advanced motion trackers.
@@sH-ed5yf Right. The turret detaches much like the Enterprise-D saucer section can, in a pinch. It's not a defect, it's a high pressure/velocity escape system.
Russia has lost anywhere from 70,000 to 200,000 troops in Ukraine. More than 1,700 Russian tanks have been destroyed, damaged or captured. The give an idea of how insane that is the U.S has lost just over 7000 troops since 9/11 that's over 20 years. Russia was already facing population issues this is madness. It's always the Russian people who pay the toll.
@@alexdunphy3716 please stop lying,. what BBC said was that they have 16000 confirmed OBITUARIES OF REGULAR RUSSIAN TROOPS KILLED, so not counting DPR (over 9000kiled) LPR 1000-2000 killed, Wagner tens of thousands, Rosguardia ??? They also say that that only cover at most 30% of the number of dead as they have pictures of gravestones with kia soldiers that never recived obituaries when BBC did this estimate on DECEMBER 10TH LAST YEAR they estimated the russian dead to somewhere between 45000-80000 in total, and about 3-4 times that in wounded, SO NO BCC HAVE NEVER CLAIMED RUSSIA ONLY LOST 16000 DEAD not even in december you know 4 MONTHS AGO!!!!
Plot Twist: all 5 of them that Russia could actually afford to build got to Ukraine on day 3. They were all bodied by NATO surplus from the 90s within 72 hours because they’re built to the same standard of quality that we’ve all come to expect from the Russians.
except thst the Abrams wiped the floor with the T72 and the T80 in both Desert Storm abd the Iraq War. To the point where both Russia and China had to re-think their defense strategy. Zero lost to enemy fire and its not like the Iraqis weren't trying.
@@vic5015 Sure sure, if taking out Polish made T-72 is an accomplishment than Russians are not far behind USA these days. There is a reason why Poland stopped making tanks.
@@vic5015 That factory these days can't even produce 1 tank per month for the last 30 years or so. In any case, Iraq had mostly Polish T-72....same ones that were shipped to Ukraine lol
The awesome thing about the Abram X is that you can either have it built from scratch or you can upgrade existing Abrams to its specifications. So you can turn your base Abrams premium model into a collectors piece :P. Honestly the AbramsX is what the Russian T-14 wants to be but in this case actually works and is used by experienced crews. .
T-14 seems to be quite a vulnerable target. Its thickest armor is concentrated in the crew capsule while the turret has little to no armor compared to the majority of other tank designs. Sure, it wouldn't launch the turret into space killing the crew, but a turret hit with any relatively modern APFSDS would definitely render it out of action.
@@carlosgamarrath244 remote controlled. The top of any tank has lighter armour and ATGM like the Javelin has the capability of hitting the target from the top so if it penetrates the top it could possibly hit any important electronic components that can easily render the turret inoperational.. sure it wouldn't make the tank crew a part of the airforce for a while but the tank sure would need to retreat for repairs.
@@carlosgamarrath244 I'm not the only one criticizing T-14 for its turret protection. The bulk of it is just a relatively thin steel cover, you can google how it looks without it. There's simply no space for any composite armor. Sure, russia claims its active protection system can intercept even APFSDS but it wouldn't be able to affect it that much. AP systems are generally effective against slower AT missiles and lower speed HEAT projectiles, but not against kinetic energy penetrators.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 Not necessarily. Modern composite armor packages protect the turret pretty well from APFSDS, at least from the front. That's why both modern guns and APFSDS are getting longer (like DM 53 with its 850mm of penetration). T-14's turret can be penetrated by something like DM 23 (400mm pen.) or even DM13 (380mm pen.)
The T-14 is a good representation of the Russian Military; looks powerful and mighty but there's not enough of it, hampered by issues with the state and isn't really that good.
The state loves a direct line of hierarchy for its military. Officers give orders and the soldier has strictly no autonomy. I think the Western or Nato doctrine, is for individual soldiers to be given as much autonomy as possible. Under Putin it all seems bound up with a judiciary that is beholden to Putin. That's a lot of clout when dealing with issues of state!
4:11 Turns out the parking brake was stuck due to a lack of training. This explains why it was suddenly fine and able to drive on it's own power after 15 minutes. Common misconceptions that people based their opinions about the T-14 upon. Reminds me way too much of people saying the same thing about the USAF's F 35 when it was 'taken down' in a training exercise when all it that happened was the aircraft was governed and restricted due to early prototype software. To this day so many people think the F 35 is 'junk' because of this even though it's an amazing warplane. This tank is probably a really good modern tank. I wouldn't assume otherwise, we just don't have any proof of their combat usage yet.
Russia's problem is that even if the T-14 is as good as advertised, they don't seem capable of producing them in bulk. Their best bet may be to license it to China and India, but even then, the tank has to be cost-effective too.
@@Cailus3542 Building "next-gen" equipment like the T-14 is supposed to be takes a lot of experience, a large industrial base, solid trade connections, and most importantly, a lot of money to basically shovel into a furnace for a few years while the platform is being developed. China and the US could definitely build tanks to these standards with on-par or superior tech, but I would be unsure about India right now.
The questions for UAF are two 1) How easy can a Ukrainian farmer tow this crap with his tractor, 2) How high its turret flies in comparison with the newest T90?
Also you gotta remember that the T-14 has S-2500 time traveling missiles and co-axial Su-357 stealth fighters😂. 9:48 Did they seriously call a tank a terminator 3?! They should have called it the "Under Siege 3: Under Stephen Segal"😂
