Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields? 

Get 68% off NordVPN! Only $3.71/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.com/binkov or use a coupon binkov

The T-14 has fabulous stealth technology. No one has spotted one yet.

You know why they call it the T-14 right? Because they can only afford to build 14 of them.

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Yeah, the same way the Yamato ruled the waves when it was built. LOL

I can only imagine a column of headless T-14's wandering around without a turret looking for repairs...LOL

Yes, but how does it fare against tractors?

Russia has a large modern military. However the large part isn't modern and the modern part isn't large.

A former German tank designer interviewed on the channel of Panzermuseum Munster said that the idea of unmanned turrets was well researched, but western engineers never liked it much (outside a few ill-fated attempts like the concepts leading up to the M60 Starship). It had too many practical issues for simple things, like no longer having the option to stick your head out of the turret to look at something that's at a bad angle for a camera. The designer also emphasised that Armata's size is now much more comparable to western tanks than the former Soviet designs.

Of course T-14s will rule the modern battlefield. All 10 of them.

I guess you'll see a lot of them on any future battlefield in which they are used. You'll be able to easily locate them from the long columns of smoke and the fires from fuel and ammo cookoff.

T-14 Im’ard’a

The answer is no for three reasons. Reason 1: the Russian military can't afford to buy very many of them, so it's highly unlikely that they'd play a decisive role. Reason 2: the Russian military has clearly demonstrated that they do not understand armored or aerial combat in the least and, as such, any vehicle they deploy is going to be significantly less effective. Reason 3: the Armata has very good crew safety, but it's even more prone to a mission kill by shooting the turret than even older Soviet tanks or NATO tanks.

Russia initially embarked on a massive program to equip its forces with this tank but never got beyond the production of a few prototype tanks and then changed its tune, saying that its current tanks were competitive with NATO tanks and that it would just modernize its existing tanks. This is strikingly similar to the hype about the Su-57 and then Russia's backtracking that the Su-35 was good enough for its defense needs but then has come out now saying that its going to develop its latest and greatest Su-75. I think what we are seeing with this country is an attempt to create halo weapon systems with which to dazzle unwary potential arms customers in the international market. We've seen its overhyped and underperforming missile defense systems that get defeated by Western technology when operated by Russia's customers. Russia is like an international used car salesman, let the buyer beware.

Tank producer:Soo what kinda tank you want? Russia:Small head tanks but thicc body

I’m guessing not because Putin can only be in one tank at a time.

As long as the Russians cannot fix their logistics, their mighty tanks barely make it out of the garage.

will it break the record on highest turret ever launched?

Well, only one way to find out! *_Looks at the Caucuses_*

The T72s turret ejection system is working perfect in Ukraine.

Honestly its hard to feel threatened by this tank when they cant produce enough of them to even equip a brigade. Tbh i think its going to take them at least 10 years to make it in large enough numbers for it to be their mbt and by that time its going to be obsolete.

For all the military specialists here: Have fun arguing with each other

Binkov: *Makes a video on T-14 Armata* Red Effect: *OOOOOHHHHH!*

I love how Blinkov diplomatically handled Crimea on the map.

Armata has a massive problem. The Javelin mk2 missile. All those sensors on the turret would be taken out, leaving the crew blind. The active defense systems won't be able to stop the Javelins top-down attack.

"Lack of depression in the turret" Yeah, I don't have that problem, they can have some of mine.

All tanks look badass until they hear a drone flying over. Tank:Why do I hear boss music?

I like these arguments when people say the SU-57 is better than XXXX or the T-14 is better than XXXX. Even if that's true it doesn't matter since both of those examples have serious issues that are delaying them from being built in any significant number. The Me 262 was well beyond the capabilities of aircraft during it's time. It didn't matter because there were just too few of them. The bigger hypothetical isn't if the T-14 is better than it's contemporaries. It's if they can even build them lol.

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Ukraine: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

23:50 "It's cost seems to be precluding its production in very high numbers." If you think that was a problem before Feb 2022, it's going to become an even bigger problem going forward. Tell me, can they build this without western microprocessors? China doesn't make microprocessors, you know. And I'm not sure it will be a good idea to load the Russian military with Chinese electronics. Every system will have excellent back doors you never find until China decides to turn off the entire Russian military.

8:36 that is scary

Given that the US has already gotten detailed information about the Armata and has developed ammunition that is able to penetrate the Armata's armor, and that the tank rounds for NATO are largely standardized (UK has to be an oddball), I'd say no, it won't rule future battlefields. Add to it that Russia cannot produce enough of them to replace combat losses in the event of a major war and it gets worse. Edit: Alright people, after MONTHS of this comment being up I finally noticed enough to say: UK No longer an oddball and has a smoothbore like all the other cool kids. Armata's even MORE fucked than it was before.

What T14....They can't make it. Its still not in production.

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No because more than likely there won't be enough of them.

Lazerpig brought me here. This is comedy gold. "In some regards more advanced than NATO tanks".

You’re still buying into the brochure as if all these systems work flawlessly. In such a corrupt culture as modern Russia, problems with complex systems are hidden or downplayed so that everyone can report a positive result to their immediate superior. The design is impressive at arm’s length but the reality is that most Russian weapons are the products of cutting corners. Then consider who crews these tanks? the quality of Russian forces has been catastrophically overestimated against the obvious facts that they are very poorly paid and training is obviously deficient. If the T14 goes into battle as poorly protected by infantry as the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine, they’ll be handled in the popular manner.

22:56 your map is in error. It colors the Crimean peninsula in the Russian colour.

Hi Binkov, been watching your material for a bit and gotta say this was my favorite. Appreciate you differentiating between factual and estimates.

The Armata won't be standard with the Guards Motorized rifle regiments/tank regiments until the late 2020s-2035. I'd say by 2035. They would have to phase out all the t-90s, 72BMs, and whatever 80Us they have left to make room.

So marginally better, and vastly more expensive... Looks like the Rus have learned in the F-35 school of weapons development.

The last I heard the Russians can't afford to produce the T14,they were going to acquire only 20 copies of each variant,tank,BMP,Wrecker,bridge layer,and command and control vehicle, for a total of 100...

Very informative! Whenever I need a realistic battle discussion, I come here!

Man this channel provides glimpses past the BS in so many ways.

Everybody gangsta until A-10 Warthog arrives...

At this point, it appears the first foe the T14 needs to beat is the budget

"Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No, because they can't afford to make them, and never will be able to.

T-14 seem like a great tank on theory, like how communism looks like a savior for humanity on paper.

NATO tank: exist in operation T14: does not exist in operation So this is not even a competition. T14 is a nice concept on paper, but Russia does not have the financial power to go from concept to operational use

“The T-14 is using one generation newer reactive armor plates than those on the T-90” okay so the T-72’s had cardboard and garbage in the reactive panels. The T-90’s had blocks of old rubber. What comes after old rubber in the development tree? Plywood?

In Desert Storm Americans proved that ground army is a sitting duck without Air Superiority. As long as T-14 enjoys safe from air strike battleground then yeah why not.

"Peace was never an Option"

They have 10 T 14s, just 10. Three are prototypes. They were supposed to have 100 the first year. If people haven't been paying attention, tanks are no longer the weapons they were. Drones are the weapons that will win battles.

: Dmitri why your hat looks different today ?? : It is made of extra tank round, made one for you too...

This has aged well!

Interesting to see, that especially the newer Gen (at least NATO, don't know for Russia) autocannons are more and more optimized to be able to mission kill the optics of battle tanks, something that was considered in the development of Puma's weaponry and the related precision - if you can't penetrate them that easy anymore, first overfeed hardkill, then destroy sensors, day over.

Some Russian official is probably now sitting somewhere in an hidden office, his face burried in his hands as Binkov here is so expertly revealing all the aspects of their new tank.

It's the best ceremony tank ever since it's built for ceremonies only.

Tractor towing hook installed?

as a war in Ukraine shows, this tank doesne fucking exist lol

We can assume that this tank uses steel, but we do not have reliable information about this.

9:08 I have to point out this error, those are just smoke launchers, the afganit aps is the two boxes with a bunch of charges on top of the turret

I know all the sensors are protected but, are they protected enough to still work right after being hit by a high explosive round on the outside? If i was in an inferior tank and i knew my "AP" rounds probably weren't going to pen, I might try blinding the tank by damaging its sensors with HE.

Seeing this video in 2022 "lmao no"

IIRC, I remember Jordan having a tank with an unmanned turret. It's a Chally 1 with an unmanned turret similar to Armata or STH.

as far as I know, the afganite protection launches one of the cylinders vertically from the top of the turret and then the cylinder explodes with a directed explosion towards the incoming projectile. The frontal horizontal cylinders are smoke screen. But I might be mistaken. Still there is a video on youtube showing this active protection in action with and without slow motion camera.

So in conclusion, the only way to see if the T-14 is going to be combat effective is to have the crew train in tactics then put the T-14 into combat to get real time information to get upgrades or advancements in tactics with the T-14 crews input!

Having none of your offensive weaponry protected by some sort of armour has to have a lot of draw backs... Yes the crew is protected, but if your gun can be completely destroyed by a 25mm bushmaster it doesn’t matter how protected your crew is you may as well not even shown up... not to mention the crazy complex repairs that would be needed...

The only advantages the Russian tanks had to offer were that they were simple, they were reliable, and they could be made in numbers. T-14 is complicated, expensive, will require a massive investment in training, and they'll never field a full division. It's a paper tank. In perfect conditions without dust and dirt, that tank is going to look pretty good. In the field, I doubt they'll be able to maintain them for any length of time. They made the classic mistake of building a weapon to fight the last war.

As always seems like a fair and accurate assessment given the information available.

Good video most fair look! Which unlike the su-57 I would say the T-14 is a true next-gen tank if only until the west makes one. Also without senors, you still have the backup sight in the Abrams which is the classic scope next to the gun like in a Sherman. If that fails you could just open up the bore and sight down it or just act as artillery and keep missing until you hit.

Putin can't afford enough T-14s to matter. Just like he can't afford more than a few Su-57s lol.

Today we can answer the question with simple: No.

APS at Armata give 270 degree protection. It has pretty complicated system tracking incoming projectile and turning the turret automatically on it to deploy countermeasures. Moreover, if missile launched from open space, it can automatically detect start point of the guided missile and fire HEAT round there to destroy launcher and operator.

Only in CGI movies... It's a science fiction tank.

It is always misleading to compare one isolated weapon with another isolated weapon. All weapons operate within a tactical system of combined arms, command, control, communication and intelligence. All of this has to be considered when comparing one MILITARY and how it operates against another.

I wouldn't count on them ruling any battlefield when military tech has sort of evolved away from the traditional battlefield and either moved towards American-style air superiority or low-tech terrorists tactics. A tank is great to have as support once you've got a position you want to hold onto, but in reality you shouldn't expect to see much tank on tank fighting any more... unless Russia and China decide to have a go at each other.

I’ve not got a lot of experience working around tanks, but I do make a lot of models, and I was surprised at how big T-14 is, i found it’s similar in size to the Israeli Merkava

I remember about 10 years ago people were saying that tanks have become close to obsolete. I don’t think that’ll ever happen. Even if it’s not the most ideal tool for the job, I think it’s hard for a general to resist the sheer show of muscle and force a tank has on the battlefield. It’s like having a novel character or car in a video game...even though it’s effectiveness might be debatable compared to the newer characters or cars, it’s impossible to not want to use it.

It doesn't really matter how good/bad T-14 is, as Russia can't afford to build them in significant numbers anyway.

I feel like I'm watching a video about the best new battleship design in 1945. Fascinating perhaps, but ultimately probably pretty worthless in a modern conflict.

that nordVPN thing has become particularly funny given recent events

9:00 those are the smoke launchers and the smaller things on top are the aps banks

Everything he said in this video was pure window dressing !!!!He might have well been talking about specs for the Death Star!

It really depends on who has the air superiority.

Rule future battlefields? Not if future A-10s have anything to say about it. BRRRRRTT!

I think as we now know there are probably less than 20 Armata tanks been built. I also hear they have failed acceptance trials for the Rus army. Don’t forget the debacle of one breaking down during a military parade.

An Israeli soldier told me that it says on the instruction panel of a T-62 tank that "the driver must be small and strong". I have limited personal experience, just the M113 I drove in Germany, but it seemed to me like combat effectiveness could degrade over time if the crew had to work in cramped positions.

A limited 1st world military with a 3rd world economy equates to the T-14 being another "wonder weapon" that dictators love so much. No matter how effective they are they would be quickly eleminated due to overwhelming numbers of comparable tanks and anti-armor assets and lack of depth in their logistics chain. But what's important is future Binkov videos. Might I suggest Papua New Guinea canaballistic head hunters versus the current US House of Representatives. I would love to see the aftermath.

First of all Russia is struggling to get the new engine working. They are finding that higher technology items are much harder to build than they expected and they are running into massive quality issues and cost overruns. The current prototypes are using an older engine with far less power, so the rated speeds and range are only expected stats if the engine actually lives up to the stats they hoped. The armor on the T-14 around the crew is really good, but the armor on the back half, rear, top... an especially the turret is weak. The tank is massive, but the weight is not that bad, so all the physical armor is only to protect the crew. It is so weak in the back that they added the cages to protect the engines from hits from a simple RPG. The turret has even less armor. They are relying too heavily on their active defenses. They have the same dazzler system that current TOW missiles have been programmed to encode to bypass and their active armor is also bypassed by the new TOW with the addition of a 1 meter rod on the end to prematurely detonate it. They also have their tubes under the turret to shoot down incoming missiles, but they have a VERY limited arc. None of the defenses work against the a sabot round and the new round for the M1A2 Sep 3 is strong enough to pernitrate the armor already, but they will be facing the M1A3 likely by the time they ever deploy the T-14. The active armor and dazzler system is the same s what was on the upgraded T-90 and they still suffered roughly 50% casualties from the TOW BGM-71E in Syria. They sent 30 and lost 10 of them. There is a top down version of the TOW now that would bypass all the active defenses of the T-14. 10% lower armor on the turret!?!? You mean it is only 10%. The armor is only about 1/2 to 3/4" of steal. A 50 cal will rip through it. Russia has stated many times the whole design idea of the tank was armor to protect the crew as the priority and the turret was very vulnerable and that they rely heavily on their active defenses. These tanks are going to be taken out instantly in combat... but the crew will likely survive. This tank is a joke. In the end it will not matter as they have drastically cut orders because the price of oil dropped so low and 80% of their tanks are still the old T-72.

Newest update to Abrams has the gas guzzling turbine replaced with the German leopard Diesel engines. So that’s not a factor anymore.

Interesting video, and nice to see a candid discussion about how rapidly Russia (in 2020) could field these tanks. My thought is that, 1) they need more of them, now; 2) but, given budget constraints and further pressure due to sanctions related to the (in my opinion) absolutely catastrophic decision to invade Ukraine, will push this window out - way out. The narrator mentions crew protection in the T-14. If memory serves, the T-90s currently serving in Ukraine have a similar setup, and yet we see burnt-out rusted hulks, trackless and without turrets, in almost every photo. If I were appointed a driver, I may well get my affairs in order pronto. Not to argue that the same might be applicable to **any** tank, just to note that the removal of personnel from the turret may have limited benefits - if any.

The only good tank is a moving tank

I know the t90 was conceived in the soviet era but it came out in 93 iirc. It surely must therefore be a post soviet era tank?

Their supposed vaunted and invincible T-90s have been destroyed in large numbers daily against Ukrainian with their T-64. Paper tiger is what they are. Their armata will meet the same fate.

Very innovative design and even with all known-unknowns I guess a force to be reckoned with.

Saint Javelin says no.

Im a Russian myself , and the thing is the Russians although advertise it alot , they wont use them as much , as our Main tanks are still T-90s and 80s and 72s B3 The Armata is somewhat of a support tank? Like best way i can explain it is imagine a Maus tank , it wouldnt be alone and would sort of sit back and take enemies out while the main battle is going on. Due to its powerful sights and such I belive it will be somewhat of a sniper tank , sitting back , taking a hit or too while being in a hull down position , not running around the battlefield like a crazy man.

The Armata has an impressive gun barrel. The turret is situated more towards the rear of the tank, otherwise would the long gun barrel have created issues? Imagine the turret situated more to the front, to the extent that after the Armata climbs over an obstacle, on it's way down, it will be more prone facing down on the ground, before being on the way up.

Whenever Russia shows a new toy they end up not having the funding so lol

And now there's the Challenger 3.

All 14 or so of them? :D Seriusly, armata is impressive, in no small part due to fact that Russians tried so hard to break with their half-century established pattern of tankbuilding. They ultimately failed at engine (as usual), but they tried. One can also assume, that increased reliance on improved ERA and APS means that baseline armour has been optimised against APFSDS. Also about human loader - as Chieftain pointed out, rounds in optimal position are expanded first and even without fatigue, manual loading takes more time.