Why The T-14 Armata Tank Best Tank in the World - Top Tank in the World 

(If u don’t wanna read it all skip to the last line) Yes, but with my comment I wanted to underline quite a big mistake in the teminology used. Usually a tank only really needs a minimum of 2 crew members to operate, a driver (controls the movement of the tank) and a gunner (controls the weapon/s), except some very rare occasions a thinrd member is found in the role of the commander (gives order and organizes the work and outside of the tank). Now to the point of the video, many tanks also have a fourth (or more) crew member to help in the reloading process of the weapon/s, the loader, this role can be accompished also by an automated mechanism called “auto-loader”. So what happens inside the T-14 (a pretty much every single soviet/russian mbt from the T-54) is that an auto-loader takes the place of the human loader, NOT THE GUNNER!!

If the tank gets hot and the auto-loader gets damaged the gun becomes useless as it cannot be loaded manually. With a western tank, if the loader is wounded you just get another loader.

@@englishalan222 there are pros and cons to an autoloader. Yes as you said, its a machine whoch means that it can have malfunctions, if damaged it will need to be repaired, and overall a fourth man in the tank can always come in handy (for spotting, repais...). But on the other hand an autoloader will be much more efficent than a human, yes, there are some loaders that can load a 120mm shell in under 3 secs, but they won’t be able to do it consistently. For example the M1 Abrams has around 4/5 shells in a so called “sweet spot” in the ammo rack, but once those shells are gone it will take much longer to reload the gun, or the loader will be moving 120mm shells inside the fighting compartment, which isn’t really the best, in order to always have the “sweat spot” full. An autoloader doesn’t have that issue. Furthermore both systems can have the ammo placed in a safe place, where in case of fire/explosion I won’t destroy or damage the tank. They are both 2 very valid systems, Nato tanks usually will have a manual loader to benefit from its pros, while soviet tanks usually are equipped with an automatic one, also because it can drastically reduce the size of the tank, Just look at T-80, T-90 and even the K-2, Type 10 and Leclerc turrets, they are significantly smaller compared to the Chally the Leos and the Abrams, and a smaller target is harder to hit. There is no better system at the moment, both have quite big advantages and disadvantages

Its an unmanned turret

@@vale.44peru63 Вы перечислили несколько преимуществ танка с автоматом заряжания и только одно преимущество танка с четвёртым членом экипажа: он может когда-нибудь пригодиться. Ради этого приходится существенно увеличивать объём боевого отделения. Ведь заряжающий не сидит компактно на стуле, а стоит на ногах и таскает снаряды. А это тонны и тонны дополнительной стали, чтобы забронировать увеличившийся объём (в кубе!) и снижение стратегической мобильности: танк преодолевает не все мосты, нужны более мощные тягачи, платформы, самолёты и т.д. это увеличение давления на грунт, что ведёт к снижению проходимости (сокращает варианты манёвра на карте, или снижение тактической мобильности), ухудшает соотношение веса к мощности двигателя, опять снижение маневренности и увеличивает нагрузку на подвеску, двигатель и трансмиссию сокращая их ресурс. Бесконечно увеличивать вес нельзя - поэтому в большинстве проекций, кроме лобовой, толщина брони у танка с заряжающим очень невелика в сравнении с русскими танками с автоматом заряжания и плотной компоновкой. Вы верно указали, что заряжать быстрее автомата человек может только первые несколько снарядов. Затем он устаёт и снаряды надо доставать уже не из таких удобных мест. Делать это на ходу по пересечённой местности - хуже, чем русская рулетка. Автомат заряжания гарантированно безопасно заряжает при любой тряске. Автомат заряжания позволяет сделать основную боеукладку в самой нижней части танка. Это значит, что значительную часть времени в реальных условиях боеукладка будет скрыта от прицелов противника неровностями на местности. В отличие от танка с заряжающим, где боеукладка в башне всегда удобна для прицеливания противником. Наконец то, о чём западные воины стараются не думать: в случае по настоящему серьёзного конфликта будут применены ядерные средства поражения. Облучённый заряжающий просто не сможет таскать снаряды. А вот наводчику в русском танке нужно только нажимать кнопку. Он сможет это сделать и при сильном облучении. Русские всерьёз собираются воевать до конца. Солдаты НАТО готовы к такому? Так что Ваши слова, что лучшей системы нет - некорректны. Система с автоматом заряжания значительно превосходит по целому списку боевых качеств систему с лишним членом экипажа. Да и ещё: лишний член экипажа - это и увеличение потерь личного состава.

Hahahaha me too ... 🤟🏾🤟🏾🤟🏾

Hahahahaha 🤘

And that may be good so. 😂😂😂😂

Is in arma 3 and the one with thre 50 cal gun is a beast

Me too

Given it's Russian, I think it's pretty safe to take the claimed performance and chop it in half, then sprinkle on a dash of "Russian Assembly, maintenance and Parts Selloff" for that good old Russian variable.

Take thier word for it and if it turns out to be bs you can laugh your ass off later

Worst part is, not only we have no idea about the T-14 abilities, but not even if it's REALLY the key Russian tank. They have a History of developing secret tanks that only appear once the war starts for real.

A Challenger II/III would decimate it,.... End of... Russian scrap metal!

@@2stroketimebomb since when has the challenger seen combat

why would you use it against old soviet tanks lul, maybe we see it in action soon

@@andrejjanicijevic234 all 2 of them?

First tank that gets TOWED into battle

They are intended to be used against NATO, not Ukraine.

@@yaossmirkingrevenge9709 there is 100 delivered

lol

😱😱👍👍😆😆

the dedliest monopod u can use

@@Zichoe yep

Look at that frontal reactive armor! And the big turret! Thats some hot stuff..

but they are reciving upgrades to modernize

@@mangotaco9433 That doesn't change the fact that the basic design of most MBTs are still decades old. It should come as no surprise that a tank that was newly-built from the ground up in the last 5 years or so is better than tanks that were originally designed 40-50 years ago and have only had upgrades bolted on.

10-20 years is not much for a tank to be consider "old and outdated". You have Russian T-90AM which is 30 years old tank and still one of the best in the world.

@@matejsb4720 Compared to a new design and newer technology, it's old. This tank has other countries going back to the drawing board right?

@@matejsb4720 well the t90 is for russian standarts a good tank, but it is only a upgraded version of the t72 and compares very badly to western tanks like m1a1 or leo2a5-6 m1 and leo2 may be old, they have been kept up to date and modernised constantly and have been produced from the start to a higher standart than t72 and its competitors

fast forward 2 years and now we know russia got a wooping 8 out of 20 T-14 running. nowhere near a frontline of course, cant have one of those badboys getting scratched by a $50 drone and risk some image damage

Not to mention the Russian media outlets state that the t14 has actually fought in Syria, one of the most recorded wars in history, and there’s no footage of a t14

​@@JOhnDoe-nl4wj Имидж это само собой но, армат не 20 или 8 штук, выбросьте свой телевизор пожалуйста и перестаньте верить пропаганде

А где поучаствовали абрамсы, леопарды, леклерки, и пр.? Наверное воевали максимум против т-72А да и то с ужасным экипажем

They have already claimed this about the T72, destroyed by Western tanks during the two wars in Iraq!

Only in Putin's head LOL

Ay, give 'em a break. At least it exist on parades.

In russia, yes. The T-95 was their previous "super-tank" project. it never got beyond cosmetics placed on a T-80 but Russia and their propagandists were claiming it was the best. At least with the T-14 a few have actually been produced. In that sense its better than the T-95 as a tank. But so is my shotgun because unlike the T-95 it's real.

It’s because it has cameras instead of vision slits next time make a better educated comment

@@tomscoolgames7616 It's because they are only deployed to military parades in Moscow, not to any actual combat units. Hence very low visibility. Nothing to do with sights and crew vision. Next time have the intelligence to understand the language you are reading in and recognise a pisstake before replying to a comment.

@@bluecedar7914 mate they are only deployed in parades because its in the prototypes its not in production yet

@@tomscoolgames7616 And probably never will be.

@@bluecedar7914 yes it will there’s 140 expected for production in the following months

this turned out to be a dud tank , a copy of a failed u.s tank from the 80's , with good tech on it though. few built.

@@michaeldy3157 And yet, it managed to kick some Nazi's ass, in the Battle of Kursk... Meanwhile 🇺🇸 in WW2: 😪😴

@@dec13666 nahh we where fighting japanes and suppling canada and britan and even the ussr

@@bunbun8050 _supplying_ 🤣... Good one 👍

@@dec13666 english is not my first language

It will probably get blown up

Which would happen to any tank that went against it.

well

I here it makes a nice tractor for plowing fields

It should be a lot better than T80s and T90s, that’s for sure

beceaus of the term called intelligence leak basicly sart poeple leave from Russia to a better cuntry that actually pays for work

I caught another Lazer pig fan☠️☠️☠️

And no, it doesnt use a Tiger P engine and how would even that kind of engine make the tank go up to 90kmh forward speed☠️☠️

125mm

@@alexjohn836 and 152 mm too

@@deanhankio6304 There is no Armata tank with 152mm main gun. Only on paper.

@@markohint444 There was supposed to be, but the funding/resources couldn't be found. Which sucks because many said it had the potential to be the best tank gun ever.

@@comareborn8734 the T14s 125mm gun is the best 125mm gun so far.. Its has the highest muzzle velocity of any 125mm gun.

Here's one I don't think anyone caught. Minor but still a mistake. At 8:34 he says the USA had problems with the M-1 in Desert Storm. Not true. We had those problems during Desert Shield, the precursor to Desert Storm. The air filters on the M-1 tanks would cake up with sand. Chrysler had to real quick redesign the air filters and get them deployed. Desert Shield was a defensive strategy to protect mainly Saudi Arabia from further invasion. Once the problems with the M-1 were sorted and we had enough military mass, the strategy shifted to attack instead of defense. That would be Desert Storm.

@@protorhinocerator142 This what I'm saying the Abrams is combat proven, and MERKAVA tank; the armata is not, you don't know what errors a system can have till its in combat. Testing is fine but combat proven is another. And deserts storm was an amazing strategy.

@@lip124 Agreed. If you want to test a car, you put it on a race track. If you want to test a tank, put it in a war. No general wants to use a weapon system that's not battle tested unless he has to.

primitive Putin-propaganda...

@@barfuss2007 you're inadequate, are you?

It's so bad not even Russians want to be inside of it. It can't even go 100 ft without breaking down.

100

Did you read about the tank? The tank is a prototype around 2014-2020 They only started production last year because its brand new

@@eizlaniskandar7946 2014 prototype - eight years ago. There was an announcement by the Russian Government that over 2000 would be produced by 2020. They have a handful because they were incapable of producing more.

Twenty may well be an exaggeration.

The number in active service is zero.

@@paulstone472 What do you mean? They've been kicking Ukrainian ass with them. ;)

​@@MWGScorp Oh well, are u sure about that? last time i check they kicking Ukrainian civilians asses with artyllery, cluster and thermobaric bombs by striking hospitals, schools and residential buildings. Russian tanks in the other hand are beeing destroyd or abandoned by troops due to lack of fuel, supply and/or no will to fight. Sadly this war was totally not necessary, and millions of civilians will pay the price, for this act of aggresion. at least it seems that war will be over soon, already 1/3 russian troops was killed, injuerd or captured so i hope this nightmare will be over soon.

@@MWGScorp lol no.

@@MWGScorp 😂😂😂😂😂Russian weaponery is like crap. No matter how much of it you have if it smells and looks like crap, it is crap.

How so? Wait, you believe Ukraine is winning? You've been tricked into supporting a pointless war where men are being slaughtered by Russian artillery just like Vietnam and Iraq. Ukraine's been winning for 7 months yet Russia controls 20% or the country and just held votes. Russia is losing yet Ukraine needs billions to keep the army afloat? If Russia is losing so badly why spread NATO? Russia will be collapsed this year according to Western news. Putin has 20 diseases, 5 attempted coups have happened, and Putin is a mad man who started an unprovoked war.

​@@jasperpercabeth9140best tank in the world would probably be struck by artillery and abandoned by its crew

​@@jasperpercabeth9140ok to explain, all tge hype for the T-14 is probably nothing but hype. Over the years the T-14 have gone from "We have hundreds of them " to " 14 experimental are on the field and hundreds are in production" . This is a major red flag as it shown that not only the T14 armata is not combat ready but its also in such short number that they can't be deployed on the field. And again there is so little of those tank produce that rhea won't have an impact on the war.

@@lofis07ait doesnt even have to be hit. after like 10 minutes itll break down

@@jasperpercabeth9140LOL better thats funny

Perfect for when you deploy conscripts and they abandon the tank. 😄

This wasn't in Ukraine though 🤔

@@marshalljulie3676 cause rus ancient army doesnt want to sacrifize this "modern tank", better to stay out

@@marshalljulie3676 Comrad Julie got offended

@@jesseaffiliate6328 Lmao. Us lgbt army fanboy

You can be fairly sure that when it comes to tanks, Russia do not design a dud

Truth. I know from experience. And all tanks throw track.

Engine and tracks replaced after every battle or exercise? Wow... 😳

Amm... no. You don't need to replace neither tracks nor engine after each exercise or battle. Tensioning the tracks, perhaps, sure! And the regular general daily maintenance and checks. But other than that, not really anything, unless you happen to have reached the next major service/maintenance point in the schedule. Or, if you actually managed to get hit during a battle engagement. Or, I don't know, perhaps sand gotten past the engine air intake filter, if you're in a desert environment. So, my question to you is, what kind of tanks have you been working on, since you present this bleak image?

You can see in Ukraine now how many tanks just get abandoned because they broke down. Bet the corrupt Russian army is not into regular maintenance

@@WiesoNurMistnamen I think they're mostly out of fuel

Most modern tanks go that fast. It’s not that crazy

@@Skinny6539 nope most fall around the 60kph mark

@@dantheman2292 or less. I had drive my T-72 around 80km/h . , where i was in the army . But not easy to drive on that speed. Not easy to keep it straight.

You need a better bike

@@petrsindler1525 *cries in asian*

Nvm the combat, i want to at leas the test runs and commissioning videos.

Time has told us that most Russian tanks are hyped up and then turn out to be piles of shit.

@@generalkayoss7347 but the American Abrams, unable to withstand the hit of the ancient rpg 7, show themselves to be reliable as a Swiss watch.

@@faceless2467 The Abrams has eaten RPG's for lunch all over the middle east for 30 years now. You're just making shit up lol

@@generalkayoss7347 you probably also believe in Santa lol.

Bunch of prototypes... handfull. And the yearly production these times around 2, that is TWO... There were even talks (in home Russia!) about whether just only artificial vision (screens) is viable for the crew long-time...

Испытали его в Сирии

@@user-hi4ef6we9j How many is there? 2? :DDDDDD

@@br0mley597 The last I heard they had 19 being used solely for evaluation and demonstration purposes. The one they put in a military parade recently broke down half way through the parade.

@@user-hi4ef6we9j You mean they drove one tank a hundred meters in a military compound in Syria.

I've a feeling this is a Kremlin sponsored site.

Их более 50 ещё идёт производство

Yeah but that dose not make me sleep any easier at night knowing that the Russians have a good tank

@@helmsmanpavel3713 They also have pretty awesome aircraft if it makes you feel any better. Russia tends to produce better combat vehicles compared to the US and other militaristic nations, (or at least comparable on a much lower cost) however their production capabilities are inferior to countries like the US. By the time the russians produce and field one of this things, the US can field 10 (probably inferior) tanks, or more.

@@sanluispotosiarenia14 you Right

@@sanluispotosiarenia14 is equipment is also most of the time easier to use there fore troops can be more effective in combat

@@sanluispotosiarenia14 They have comparable vehicles and weapons but not enough money to make them effective or have enough of the newer vehicles do inflict as much damage as you might think. They barely have enough pilots to keep their air force in order with most of their pilots not having enough flight hours to keep their license due to not having enough fuel for training flights and such. also Russia has a very hard time producing and replacing older vehicles with new or upgraded ones. We will likely see more T-90m tanks come out than T-14 and they wont have half of they vehicle feet upgraded until after 2030 due to lack of funding and their continued development problems. Money is the biggest problem for Russia at the moment.

Russophobia!

The Russian military originally dispatched numerous reservists equipped with aging and underpowered equipment. As a result, the intended targets were weakened, and the missiles supplied by the West were used against less valuable targets instead. This tactic dates back to the dawn of warfare.

no its

Nice argument there NATO bot

@@tsetsoooo "NaTo BoT" Nope, I'm a real human. I just don't have enough hubris to crown something "best in the world" when it's never even seen active use yet.

@@NWA744 agree

@@tsetsoooo Ok, so where are all the t-14s wise-guy? Is Putin waiting until all his rust-bucket T-80s are either destroyed, stolen or abandoned to unleash all 3 of his new toys?

Yesss!

Well, for the same reason Battleships are now obsolete, Aircraft carriers should be as well for the same reasons.

@@cmorichie7202 Nope. Battleships lost their luster when aircraft could be brought to the fight. There is always a need to command airspace.

@@cmorichie7202 Aircrafts are needed for many jets and planes as fuel stations when air fueling cannot be used for various reasons or repair stations when jets, airplanes or helicopters have to land for also various reasons.

Absolutely not.

😄😄😄😄

Just like the Abrahams x

perfect post

Well, you aren't wrong there.

Because its 2.5x cheaper than the M1A2 abrams tank is and is a beast armor with 150 mm gun that can penetrate any western armor...

@@eliasziad7864 says who? weve all seen how well russian equipment holds up to the claims(not at all)

@@joshuawalcott321 Russian equipment, historically speaking, has somehow outperformed the US in Vietnam and Afghanistan (although both were insurgencies)

Even spelling and grammatical mistakes

Can u name them. Id like to see their videos.

@@danny_d_bongo start with Red Effect, TankNutDave, Matsimus, Blacktail Defense, Defenseupdate, the tank museum

@@superwout nice thanks

@@superwout I watch all them too, as well as The Chieftain, The Scottish Koala

Show Pony

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Best argument in this thread.👍

Considering one of the 6 used at parades broke down, it's not even good for that 😂

We will never know because it sits in garage all day long.

Pronto lo estara no te preocupes , ya desde 2014 lo habían anunciado y en 7 años ya deben de tener cientos de ellos

The T14 Also has.... AI with auto detection, tracking and target lock. The ability to go fully robotic. Stealth. Ability to designate targets from stand off ranges and pass target coordinates to other more powerful long range anti tank platforms. Ability to deploy two drones for greater NLOS situational awareness.

Yeah but T14 is the first...and others are far behind...and by the time others are catching up, T14 will be an already tested and mature platform ready to implement newer technologies....

@@nerdianz8081 Well that is my point, you call it mature, but it is not. It is still only produced in small scale and at least from what is shown it is hard to say if all the systems are fully integrated and work in real world scenarios. Just to be fair I would put something like the F-35 in the same category. But tech that they wish to use in the T14 looks good, so if that can work as intended on a battlefield under those conditions then it would be the best tank. But this has not been shown yet.

The Russians build things to look dangerous, not actually be dangerous. Until the T-14 sees honest to god combat, it's a question mark. I am not sure about the crew less turret. Maybe if the west starts using bigger guns, that could force them to use an autoloader. As of now, there are a number of significant advantages to have the loaded. He's a 4th man to help with repairs and maintenance, which is a bigger deal than most realize. A well trained NATO loader can reload faster than an autoloader. He can also swap ammo on the fly far easier.

@@Elthenar the 13cm Rheinmetall that is currently in development is projected to probably use an autoloader... however I've heard from a few ex-military mates that tank crews always would have liked to have a 5th member (like in german tanks ruing WWII) to help with maintance and just in general. Going down to 3 from 4 would put more work load on the other 3. Also the issue of an unmanned, thinly armoured turret is that it's far easier to take out. And then you're left with a well protected hull...

Land lease trucks deliver by the USA to Russia and ALOT of them , Russian logistics is heavily depending on railroad hence the trouble they have fighting outside of Russia

Because the only reason the Soviet Union survived WW2 is because of American lend lease lol

Correction: the only reason the USA survived was because of the Soviet Union. Also Soviets would eventually overcome Nazis anyways, they had vastly superior industrialization.@@jamesbailey6257

It was a trap. To fool the fool we must be fooled. It was the only way he was going to believe he will take Kyiv in 3 days. DaY 580, still counting and thousands of tanks destroyed. Slava Ukraїni 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 The Fool is next, dick of ruscist land. Heroyam Slava 🇺🇦

lol, these are expensive as shit to Russia 😂

There's not enough of them to make much of a difference.

There is really no better Tank for Parades in Red Square.

they are made from cardboard and they are not tanks just props made for parade

So basically the Abrams also cannot be considered a good MBT then? It's never fought against anything except obsolete export models of tanks which didn't even have composite armour.

At least show us some training videos or the test runs.

Sure 😂 these tractors better have apfsds rounds bc if not they wont kill a ww2 tank, not to talk about t14, especially with ERA exiting

Think they going with k2

Why make a tank that has to be able to adapt to the desert when your country doesn't have a desert? Unless it's your intention to attack an oil-rich country in the desert.

Werden sie machen✌️

@@I-MAC We have Thar desert bordering Pakistan.

@@jaydeepchakraborty9073 I think he's talking about Russia

T14 can defeat javelin

@@cooldabadam Yeah

What javelin? The ones that were captured?

@@warthunderaddict who cares if some where captured, russian fascist?

@@cooldabadam nope

Of course he has. It is absolutely NOT a secret information :)

he made by plywood...like other russian fake weapon)))

@@user-di5fx9gc2c из фанеры у вас калаши, и кастрюли вместо касок, а танки на изоленте🤣

"Tank Emotional Support Vehicle"

When you try so hard to be funny, but end up being stupid 🤣:

Hahahaha! "The only feature it lacks is a washer/dryer, but they are working on that as we speak" :))

Don't worry, none of the top 5 has proven anything. All of them are 3+ generation and look very good on paper. In one-on-one terrain, you don't know. Abrams in simulations in Germany was hit hard by a TR85M1. So what are we talking about? The details make the difference and how well the crew knows their car and above all how much they can get out of it. The rest is just fine. It's like formula 1. The driver is 80% of the car. If he's weak, the car is called a Ferrari for nothing .

It can drive? - Not for a long time. I think that's the main problem.

the original Abrams yes though the newer models are up to date and capable there really isn't a best tank

Abrams constantly updated.

The worst threat to a tank is anti tank weapons. You need infantry moving with the tanks clearing the area before the tanks can go in otherwise they will get taken out as we are witnessing in the Ukraine.

Abrams M1A1 is into is second iteration now the M1A2 and in its third revision known as SEP(system enhanced package)V3. The Abrams is constantly being upgraded and retrofitted with new technology. It’s platform is too efficient and there is reason to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

The Leopard2 is same design and production period of the Abrahams.

@kat Nonsense, the latest update added the 2016 upgrade package to T-72B (B3) which is currently used on all modern T-72 variants. T-90A/Leo 2a6 is coming next update in a month or so. T-14 is the next logical step (next major update after this upcoming one)

@@egonieser He did say that that ground forces moved past the cold war tho just talking about aircraft

@kat why are you even bringing air into this, its irrelevant. He cleary stated the "T-14" not the "stuka"

@kat once again bringing irrelevant info in the convo, gtf out of here kid

@@egonieser no way it's coming in the next major update,US- a major nation is still stuck with only 1 10.7 MBT,I don't see them giving Russia a 4th 10.7(or higher which the armata should be if it is added) until US atleast gets two 10.7s to compensate

Idk, I haven't seen it in WT.

@Pedro Gabriel Henriques dos Santos Isn't WT already broken?

@Pedro Gabriel Henriques dos Santos it wont be added becuase to much infromation is missing it never in the world reaches 90 kph with a 1500 hp engine and a 12 gear transmission, also the 900mm all around armor is compleatly unrealistic and the it only weights 55 metric tons this thing is just a show if tank boosted by russian propaganda

@Pedro Gabriel Henriques dos Santos you know you can just shoot the turret which has no armor thereby rendering it useless anyways, also the visibility and situational awarenes is called terrible i dont think this thing will be the future

@Pedro Gabriel Henriques dos Santos war thunder has always been broken

Naturally, when comparing hardware, the crew skill is and must be out of the equation. And yes, you can still be a super-skilled CS player using a old hardware, beating players using cutting-edge hardware.

THATS BECAUSE THE ALMIGHTY GOD WAS WITH HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL, BECAUSE THE NAME OF JESUS HAS POWER!!! THE BLOOD OF JESUS HAS POWER!!!! AMEN!!! HALELUYA JESUS IS COMING!!! THE END IS NEAR!!

@@El7IncA If "Almighty God" was so strongly on the side of his "People Israel", what in the Hell was it doing during WW2? Taking a nap?

@@El7IncA God in WW2: "Napping"

And always will be. There is also logistics and deployment. Refueling, maintenance, deployment, etc...This is b where the US rules the armor world.

Very far. Such a vehicle would be extremely vulnerable to both comms jamming and e-warfare.

M1 Abrams, 4 crew members. T-72, 3 crew members (no loader). T-14 Armata 2 crew members.

They don't have to test it in battle, they can just test it.

What's better, nimitz class carrier or ford class carrier? Later have not been battle tested yet afaik

That's because the T-14 armata is the most advanced tank in the entire world to this date.

With the technology the world has you can battle test a tank without it even being in combat. And you look at the statistics of a tank. Like how much armour it has size of the gun the kind of thermals it has how much gas it takes to operate speeed mobility ect

And you also look at how dated the tank is in general aswell. Like the Abrams although it has upgrades the model itself is still 50 years old and outdated compared to the model of a t-14 which has taken the good stuff from previous tanks and other counties tanks throughout the years. And it also has an auto loader which gives it an advantage over tanks that don’t have them. And the armatas crew is separated from the ammo completely so if the tank does get hit the crew is completely safe. So you Jsut look at stuff like that. And like I said before with the technology we have now you can simulate battles without the tank leaving the garage

The same was said about Russian hypersonic missiles until Russia used them. And then everyone screamed in horror that these missiles exist.

@@Khetaggoldenboy ??? What are you on? Everyone knows hypersonic missiles exist, it's literally 1945 tech.

@@khangluong5672 I'm talking about new missiles. Which Putin showed at his inauguration. In the West they said that he shows cartoons. But it turned out that Russia used them in Ukraine, albeit the weakest of its arsenal.

@@Khetaggoldenboy It's literally putting the Iskander on a plane

It's not any good as they haven't made any.

Unfortunately, war has rules. If they didn't then every country would have this.

In the medieval ages tho somewhere around the invention of the gun armor surpassed the sword for a while.

@@whyarewestillhere8562 Yeah, it did, but the sword was usually a sidearm. Weapons in the medieval period should be looked at as a collection, because all cultures had sword equivalents or axe equivalents, and all of them were used where appropriate. Plate armor was superior to conventional sword tactics ( although half swording was a thing ) but in those cases, there were axes or Lucerne hammers, which were capable of transferring enough destructive force into the armor to harm the wearer. You might not break or crack the plate but that doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt.

@@attacpowdergaming7098 Whack someone in the side of the head with a warhammer and they are likely to just vomit and pass out.

Russia actualy has something like that. Their new RPG launcher features secondary projectile fired. Its designed to defeat ERA and possibly trigger the Active protection systems. The Israel active protection system has a long reload time and wont be able to fire twice. For comparison the tubes the t14 has on the sides are active all the time and can deal with multiple projectiles without reloading.

lol , it isn't even there not even close to borders of Ukraine

There not even in Ukrainian

Except auto loader.

@@tommygun5038 Autoloader too, its dumb not to use it since human loaders cost more than replacing an autoloader + autoloaders can load heavy shells in just 6 seconds or even less

@@St.Matthew422 True but it makes the tank overall more expensive and harder to maintain, not to mention if 1 or 2 little things go bad the entire loading system will need to be checked and it'll probably be out of the fight if that happens for who knows how long.

@@tommygun5038 Guy, are you manually loading your machinegun too? I mean manual feeding. Did a shot? Feed a round! Did a shot? Feed another one!

@@worldoftancraft ....Tanks aren't machine guns and auto loaders have their own drawbacks. Which is why very few countries have that system on MBTs. During the first gulf war a M1 crew had 3 kills in 5 seconds.

he also said gunner sits in the middle. lol

he also said that the anti-HEAT cage protects the exhaust pipes, not the engine compartment

The gunner aims and fires the gun, and usually there's a separate crew member who loads the gun, which is what an autoloader gets rid of

@@MGZetta he does

To fire the weapon on the commanders order

Wrong. Couldn’t even make it through the Red Square parade 5-6 years ago without it breaking down and having to be towed off parade field. LMAO

Where was the Abrahms battle tested.

@@milktruck9345 The Abrams has been in every war the US has been since the 90s, which have been quite a few

@@jcasma against old shit tanks. The t90 will give it a real test.

@@milktruck9345 Against upgraded T72s... Which the T90 is one. The T90 is a somewhat upgraded T-72 renamed purely because Western Tanks absolutely creamed Russian made T-72s in the Gulf War.

@@milktruck9345 you do realize that during the Gulf War the US fought against the 4th largest army in the world right? Iraq had a pretty advanced army and they had plenty of the latest soviet equipment available at the time including t72 tanks, and they were completely destroyed by the Abrams. Even taking into account the difference in training, the soviet tanks still performed horribly and the t90 is simply an upgraded version of the t72

all the nukes aren't combat tested, same goes SSBN and SSN, they are all trash lmao

@@al1ce90 nukes and subs have both been tested 🙄

@@al1ce90 you never heard of Ivy Mike, Castle Bravo, Castle Romeo, Tsar Bomba🤔

Because in Russians minds..only russians...they think they have the best of everything in the military field...yet they can't mass produce any of these magical weapons lmao. Either way we need to worry about the chineese.

@@al1ce90 …I wasn’t aware that folk had been bickering over which country’s _nuclear weaponry_ was the best… ;) A rather poor attempt at false equivalence on your part.

Leclerc XLR is the best actually.

Manual loaders are orders of magnitude safer for the crew compared to the Leopard or Abarms.

What you get with autoloader is a consistent reloadtime. Loaders tire and the ready rack gets emptied. Both types has its advantages and disadvantages.

how is leopard 2a7 the best tank dawg

@@Sk-xp5dv wrong :3