Radical or Ridiculous? | T-14 Armata | Tank Chats
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- In this Tank Chat, David Willey takes a detailed look at a vehicle that has garnered significant interest and controversy - The Russian T-14 Armata. David explores why this vehicle draws so much attention, and how it has taken a radical departure from previous Soviet design philosophy.
Thumbnail Credit: Original T14 photo by Boevaya mashina, CC BY-SA 4.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► CZcams Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:47 | Soviet Tank History
09:58 | Armata Family
11:17 | T-14 Features
15:27 | Production
#tankmuseum #t14armata #armata #davidwilley
Hi Tank Nuts - let us know your thoughts about this video in the comments below.
Your information about T-14's engine is wildly untrue, both in claiming that its somehow derived from german WW2 engine and claiming that its original purpose was in gas pumps etc. Whoever wrote the script clearly didnt do his homework, the same misinformation is commonly found on internet threads of Ill repute, its absolutely ridiculous that a tank museum just reposts internet hoaxes.
It's ridiculous, since it's not a real production tank and why do so many people even care, especially historians, yea not surprised you don't have one, Russia has like maybe 8 total ........🤦
How about radically ridiculous? 😁
Thinly armored turret is a massive mistake, enabling any IFV to achieve a mission kill against it. So far IFV could reastically (disregarding surprise flanking shots) defeat a MBT is with ATGM but not you just need to hit the turret enough times. Firepower wise it is definite world beater because that is simple tech that russia has. Problems arise with quality of electronics.
@@dtrain1634 show me 15 in a picture at once .....I think they only have 8. This is the same country who repainted markings on nuclear weapons during may day parade........lol if you don't see it, they don't have it. 😁
T-14 has highly effective stealth coating. It's never been seen on the battlefield.
T-14 is the most expensive ricer tank of all time.
lmfaoooo🤣🤣
Hahahah
Evidence!?!? 😂😂😂
Daaaammmmmmnnnnn
I feel like any footage of the T-14 should come with the disclaimer “Not actual game footage” 😂
The best way to discern real footage is to determine whether the turret is spinning wildly. If it is, it's real footage.
@@bigrob966T14 is a dual use vehicle. Tank and Helicopter all in one.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe eeking out a few extra centimeters in the turret-tossing challenge
@@bigrob966 Isn't it amazing what one can power with clockwork?
If it's stuck then it's a T14
I unironically love a video that takes 10+ minutes to set the stage and fill in the necessary background knowledge before diving into the stated subject matter. Great content!
That tends to be a speech pattern for me because when I have something to say, there's detail and its something I've really thought about. This confuses and confounds exactly the right people that are pointless spoken to about anything complex anyway... Not intentionally, I'm happy speaking to almost anyone. But it let's me know who can handle/be arsed with what in any given attempt at conversation.... ;)
much like the T-14 except for the diving in part.
Me too. I'm addicted to context.
This museum has a staff rated 5 stars
Sooo agreed! There are so many military history/militaria channels that have good looking titles and even pre-ambles, but are 100% auto translator repetitive fluff that barely scratches the surface of the topic in question.
So when finding a really good channel, videos that remind me of university or conference lectures, I just soak it in, and the more loosely associated but still relevant in some way the better, haha. Gimme as much background as ya have tank museum!!
I feel like the traditional ‘Tank Triangle’ of Armor/Firepower/Mobility, should be amended to include ergonomics/crew as a 4th aspect. You can create a tank that on paper is perfectly balanced and has amazing Armor, Firepower, and Mobility but have it still perform terribly due to being difficult to use. In my opinion this is why so many games appear to have a ‘Russian bias’, because they ignore all these hard to quantify aspects.
Russian tanks are generally ok on paper but terribly made in factories due to their philosophy of quantity over quantity. For example the t34 is a legendary tank however the only reason for that is that there were so many made because it had a loss rate of more than 80% percent (horrible for a tank).
Russian tanks were never something special and still are unimpressively made.
@@Aneurysmeuh LOL. You don't seem to have heard that almost 50,000 Sherman was buil. Yes, it was such a bad tank, almost like the T-34.
In context, 80,000 T34s were made with another 10,000 if you include SPGs made on its chassis. The Sherman was built for simplicity. It’s design put focus on its crew, making easily repairable parts and good survivability. The build quality was substantially higher with a much better k/d rate. Unlike the t34 the Sherman was a much higher quality, although not the best quality still better than the Russians.
@@paleoWT You talk about self-propelled guns based on the T-34, but you are silent about ~ 9000 GMC M10 and M36 based on M4. Also, you conveniently forget that the T-34 was produced for 6 years, and the M4 Sherman for 3 years. If the Yankees had been at war since 1941, they would have produced more M4s. In fact, no, they wouldn't. Because the M4 is 1942. If you add the M3 Lee and SPG on chassis M3, like Prist, you will get similar numbers to the T-34.
You're talking about survival, but Sherman in 1942 penetrated by all German anti-tank weapons and all new panzers. When the Americans tried to make a "survivable" tank, they failed with T1 heavy and M6 heavy. You talk about the focus of Sherman's design on the crew, but it was never the feature design of the M4 by himself M2 and M3 had a crew of 6-7 men and M4 as their legacy, retained this huge interior space, now with a crew of 5 men. For comparison, the T-34 was originally a tank for a crew of 4 men. Another typical Yankee design is M3 light and it was no less cramped than the T-34. M4 was a tank that the United States could produce by tens of thousands and which matched minimum required specifications: armament (3-inch gun), protection (protection from bullets, splinters and 37mm PAK), was reliable, enough mobile and had a turret, unlike the M3 Li.
As for k/d rate, then Wehrmacht losses on the eastern front accounted for more than 70% of the total losses on all fronts from 1941 to 1945. The backbone of the German military machine was destroyed in the Soviet steppes. And the T-34 was part of it.
@@Aneurysmeuh mate, you are comparing 1930s and 1940s production of tanks to the modern day one. It is not the same today. And it was also the same for almost any country, as Germany was suffering with it's poor quality of production at the end of the war as well. Modern day production of the Russian tanks is of the high quality, with regards to the T90 tanks...
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said, by so many, about so few tanks
preach
Maus ? e100? Sgt York? Divad?
More has probably been written about Tiger tanks than all other tanks combined.
U should get ur ears checked
@TTTT-oc4eb original poster said about "so few tanks". There weren't a ton of Tigers or King Tigers, but at least those saw combat on multiple fronts and were made in the hundreds. There are, what, maybe a dozen T-14? And they're all just test beds/prototypes.
I agree that there is too much written on the Tiger and King Tiger, but at least there is a track record there.
Just needs more ERA, ERA solves everything. I installed some ERA before my exams, got A* in all of them. Installed some on my dog and it turned into a wolf
Best give it to the Ukrainians then if it needs ERA
Tsk
Just wait for those F16 ERA variants in the hands of the Ukraine air forces. It will be glorious
i installed some ERA on my Rav4, it turned into a hangarship, currently docked in oslo, look it up.
Bro u need ERA on yor ERA
this guy is very unbiased unlike the comments and everyone else. Good job i like it!
This is an excellent channel. You guys present everything so clearly without any unnecessary bells and whistles.
Apart from the fact that they literally hate Russia and are particularly biased against Russian tanks for no good reason.
@@Dollymix001 .... They hate bad tanks in general... not just russian tanks... but for the most parts, russian tanks are bad overall.
@@Dollymix001 Russian tanks do suck though. The war has exposed fatal flaws in both their design and doctrine. Even if the T-14 supposedly addresses those flaws, it's all theoretical until it faces the acid test of combat. Until the Russians can build enough of them to actually field in Ukraine or elsewhere, the T-14 is propaganda.
@@Dollymix001ah yes you can see the hate so clearly, oh wait no they are facts. Maybe take a moment to think for a bit. If all this video says is lies, why no T-14 on the battlefield? Russia’s most modern tank is not adequate, as each week they atleast lose 2 to standard types of treaths. So if T-14 was a much better tank it would be useful wouldn’t it?
@Dollymix001 Russian tanks are trash, wheres the hate? Lol go complain to whoever tf it is thats in charge of manufacturing these rubbish tin cans
"But by the time this film is released it may well be that this tank is in actual combat"- the most optimistic statement of the year. Bravo!
Entered combat a few months ago
@@Mortablunt claimed to be in combat a few month ago.
so far only claims.
@@dtrain1634 we don't bring those to parades
@@dtrain1634 Very good point. I concur.
@@dtrain1634 At least the British Army would never have a 40 mile long trafic jam in the combat zone. So there are some advantages to never having enough of anything.
As a former M1A1 tank commander. I can not count how many holes I would have got stuck in ,if I could have not stuck my head out of the hatch to see the depth of the hole. Don't know how many times I said " Loader how much room do I have on the left side." This layout will work on flat desert terrain , go down narrow trails , defiles, mine lanes good luck.
Even with today's advanced sensors, probably works great to stick your head out and look from time to time.
I think this is a solid point in abstract, but I also think it can be entirely solved through training and good cameras. Once you know your vehicles clearance, you just know. As long as training had a lot of tight clearance situations without ability to g.o.a.l (get out and look) I see it as a non issue.
I think you have probably put your finger on the problem. Video might seem like a good idea but might just not be good enough to work when someone is shooting at you.
@@basilmcdonnell9807 surely you most want cameras when someone is shooting at you. The loader won't be available to stick their head out at that point, even if they were stupid enough to want to.
@@bretts3057 Two problems. Everything breaks, especially in the military. So failing sensors and cameras will be a problem. The problem with clearance is not the size of the tank but size of what you need to clear through. Flipping through multiple camera angles might help. But those are not as flexible as human peeking about.
There is a reason with precise manoeuvring like (off))loading a flatbed you see outside help.
And training involves cost and time. In a prolonged war that's a problem. And in peace if you rely on conscripts to. In reality better training is hard to achieve. Within and outside the military.
With enough skill and talent you can make a one man turret work. That does not make it a design.
T-90 is such a beautiful tank
I swear i was about to say that 😂
Since tank museum is now covering new vehicles, maybe it might make an interesting episode on KF51 Panther?
It's a technology demonstrator, nothing else. Leopard 2A8 is expected to be produced instead and that also doesn't exist anywhere other than on paper and hard drives.
Very interesting hearing the development history of Cold War Russian tanks. Helps a lot with understanding how the T14 came about.
Agreed, it was a great primer
You mean, didn't come about.
Yar! Tho, it was a bit light on the forces that have kept the tank out of mass production. "Corruption" is correct, yet isn't really illustrative of the hurdles the tank has faced. Russian heavy industry - the stuff what can actually make the tools to make other stuff, including more heavy industry - is rife with corruption & hampered by decades of sanctions. From materials fraud to visa hostage taking, from a lack of hardened electronics from the West to a *de facto* embargo on certain types of sensors not made in Russia.
The tale of the T-14's failure to launch is, I think, worthy of its own video.
Lazerpig does a great breakdown or rather rips apart the T14... its a great watch.
@@Klaaism Lazerpig is satirist. Unfortunatly a lot of the outrageous stuff he says is funny but not true. For instance the claim that the T-14 used a copy of the Porsche Tiger Ferdinand Engines. He does reveal genuine information but you don't know what is hyperbole or fact.
This tank’s capabilities only exists on paper. The budget to build it went into super yachts and private mansions
Paper tank only. It won`t last against a real tank, as history has proved again and again, Plus, they can`t get the electronics necessary.
@@timbo66real tanks can't stand against real antitank weapons. The pendulum once again swings from advantage: armour to advantage: firepower
@@timbo66they have back channels for electronics, it's a new term, either "smuggling" or "sanctions-busting" either will do.
@@timbo66 a real tank? which real tank you have in mind? leo-2 which got busted in Syria, or M1 which got busted in iraq?
Nah if armata produced in big numbers, it will be pretty good for long range flat terrain or hulldown position. But in close combat especially city it will suck so much with crew only have visibility from camera
“Western analysts remain skeptical”
Ain’t that a surprise😅
Eh, other than upgrading it's nuclear arsenal (which does actually seem to be good, though spending as much money as they did on tactical nuclear weapons that they're basically never going to use unless they're also going to go full on WW3 with strategic nukes was definitely wasteful given their budget), post soviet Russian kit basically just exists to fuel "Russia stronk" memes rather than like, actually intended to make useful amounts of production models
@@jeromeace1282 weird, how do you know the nuclear arsenal is good?
It has never been used. Conventional Russian equipment is used around the world and seems to generally work well in battlefield conditions. There are some things that don’t, just as in the current conflict some western kit didn’t work as expected.
@@joeblack1052 Correction, conventional soviet equipment is used around the world. There isn't nearly as much actual new stuff developed by the russian federation being sold (and no i don't include upgrade packages for soviet era tanks to be something new given they've been using the same engine since ww2). As for things working as expected, I don't know why you'd expect the mainstream press, or even large swathes of alternative media for that matter, to actually know what they're talking about.
Especially given how many 'experts' thought the Russian army was the second best in the world.
As for the bit about the nuclear arsenal, tldr, going by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists report (which seems to be the main source that gets cited for these sorts of things), Russia is actively trying (and has mostly succeeded according to the russia MoD lol) to replace their soviet era nuclear arsenal, something which there is not even an attempt to do so for their conventional forces.
Also, and this is important, just because the nukes haven't been used doesn't mean the delivery system hasn't (Iskander missiles can load nuclear weapons for example). You can use nuclear capable missiles to fire conventional explosives. As for the nukes themselves, its pretty safe to assume they work, or at least not safe to assume they don't.
@@jeromeace1282 Soviet/Russian same thing, Russia made up bulk of USSR as it was formed from the Russian empire. USSR just had advantage in terms of manpower and production, but modern Russia doesn’t have some of the issues of a communist state. A lot of the newer post Soviet tech is actually the best equipment.
@@joeblack1052 It was the heart of the decision making for sure, but the trade offs modern russia has for not having the soviet's issues still leaves them significantly worse off. And their current government has its own issues, namely that fascists will always choose the option that keeps them in power, even if it means crippling their nation. Nevermind stuff like how a lot of soviet systems weren't even produced in russia in the first place, or their space program being in kazakhstan.
Also, can you list some examples? Like for nuclear delivery systems (stuff like the aforementioned Iskander missiles are lumped here) I'd definitely agree.
But for other stuff, I generally hear that they're basically either eternal protoypes to show off, they aren't actually that good, or their production runs are simply too small to actually be useful.
You'd think a fume extractor would still be valuable to prevent long term fouling even if it's not needed as urgently in an unmanned turret.
Not if the survivality of your tank in the battlefield is under one hour.
Also corrosion could be an issy.
It may be that the breech and or the entire turret assembly is in some way hermetically sealed, and kept at a high enough positive pressure that the breech opening doesn’t let in much smoke(that can easily be handled by filtration).
Could also be that it’s not really an actual “meant to be fielded” tank and so there simply hasn’t been a fume extractor added to the design yet.
Dont need one when one will get provided when it gets penned.
@@arctic_hazewell, that's about how long this "counterattack will make headway, yeah?
"getting any tank onto the battlefield is problematic." Getting any tank off the battlefield in working condition is near impossible.
На каждое действие есть противодействие! Ньютон.
Походу уже реально, вывести с поля боя заведëный исправный танк
This applies primarily to Leos and all American Excavators.
Spoken by someone who has never been on a tank in their life. Stick to video games.
@@tomrabe8037and also the tanks the T-90 of Russia, T-72 of Russia anf probably soon T-30 of Russia?
I appreciate the background information on the history of the T-XX tanks, this was about a lot more than just the T-14, and served as a fine education about what is likely to be rumbling around in Ukrainian fields right now
One of the best tank chats in ages Willey is by far the best please take note Tank museum he paints the picture of knowledge so much better than any of your other narrators.
I no understand.
You no speaky Engrish.
Chris is also a really good narrator, and I like his voice better than Willey's. Still, I think both are excellent.
except for the blatantly false parts, for example saying its a copy of a German wartime engine which is simply not true
Only thing we know for sure is that the turret rotates
Whether the crew want it to or not if the videos are anything to go by.
it's the new acorn seed lift off assistant mode, helps increase turret toss heights by up to 69%
yes but did they fit the same turret spring as in the older tanks?
I love that they flex a spinning turret as the mark of peak tank design.
As an old retired Armored Cav guy, I found this to be a great informative video. Well worth the watch if one is knowledgeable or interested in armor, it’s development, and the practical issues affecting its production and employment. Thanks Tank Museum.
Were you ever stationed in Korea? 2/72?
@@projectw.a.a.p.f.t.a.d7762 No, I was never stationed there. I went TDY once for a planning conference, but that is my only experience in Korea.
Former 19E1/2 from 348th ACAV (ARNG) here. Represent!
_> I found this to be a great informative video._
I find you gullible.
@@Conserpov perfectly irrelevant
Great piece of work as expected from The Tank Museum
Very good video.
It is very hard to do evaluation from press releases and expert guessing. Till they are deployed in a real combat, we will not know. And the tank itself, no matter how good it is, may not make a difference in combat at all. Today's battlefield is a very complex environment, so improper use can totally negate advantages in technology (if all claims are actually true).
Ukraine has committed its limited supply of Western tanks to the battlefield while Russia deploys the dregs of its junkyards. The time to deploy T-14s has come and gone many, many times throughout this war and yet they're held back like no other single weapons system.
This suggests they're crap tanks or the Russian leadership is not confident enough in them to risk losing given the prestige they represent.
@@forrestpenrod2294 Most likely they're crap like so many others.
Has your comment aged well? No. Why? Because you are uninformed. @@forrestpenrod2294
Thanks for providing the most reliable information on armored weapons systems available anywhere. It's interesting that supply chain issues seem to be the tank's Achilles heel. The decision to cancel production of the tank probably signals that a number of these technologies were too big of a stretch, and the likelihood of getting them all to work with domestically available equipment was slim.
Reliable untill they talked abt the engine….
The information is inherently flawed if you believe anything Russia says.
Russia has claimed their T-90s use modern optics and infrared, captured T90Ms (the most modern variant) prove this wrong. Literally nothing russia says is true or reliable, and honestly you'd be more accurate believing the opposite of what Russia says.
Westerners repeatedly believing Russian propaganda and then being subsequently proven wrong is the wests biggest achilles heel, too willing to listen to humans lie.
Chieftain has also spoken about the ever present issue of ergonomics as well. Good that they are in a nice little protected tub. However, commander cannot poke his head out to have a look around, which is still the best way of getting situational awareness. They are reliant on a very small number of optics to see outside the tank, disable those with something as simple as paint and they are buggered.
Given the ambushes that Ukraine seem to be able to set for the Russian tank crews, this would be my least favourite tank to go into battle with. I think even the T54/55 might be better, the extra crewman for logistics and maintenance would be a bonus for a start. It will be interesting to see how the Challenger and Leopard tanks fair in this "modern" warfare as well.
Its called corruption, not supply chain issues 😂
@@BlutoandCo Having 3 different MBTs in service with the largest country in the world is going to run into supply chain issues nothing shocking. Corruption is another whole issue.
there is some confusion about the T-95, since multiple different prototypes were called that, but the actual predecessor to the T-14 was called the Object 195, which also had the crew in the hull, the X-shaped diesel engine and other similarities, although it did have even more advanced features like a 152mm smoothbore cannon, a 30mm autocannon and radar. you can find a couple of pictures of it online.
Russia has had real problems with the cost and production of the T-14, so it's not surprising it lacks some features of the predecessor, which would further complicate the production and cost more. they will most likely stick to mainly producing the T-90M instead of the T-14 anyway.
I would like to add that the X-shaped diesel in Object 195 and T-14 is not based on a WW2 German diesel engine, which had for example its pistons at a different angle compared to the Russian one, 16 cylinders for a total of 36.6 liters and it was air-cooled. the Russian one on the other hand has 12 cylinders for total of about 35 liters and it is liquid-cooled with an intercooler among other major differences like compression ratio and cylinder bore.
the main similarities are the X-shape, both having twin turbochargers and that both engines were built for tanks, but the German engine was not the only X-shaped engine ever built nor the first one, so the claim is dubious in my opinion, although I will admit that X-shaped engines are rare. if you are still in doubt, you can look at schematics and pictures of both and compare them.
Thank you for this comment.
Must have had next gen thermo-optical active camouflage since there's so few sightings.
THANK YOU! Someone knows his stuff.
Lazerpig made these mistakes too.
Thank you. Outstanding stuff!
I don't know if this tank will ever see mass orders, production and deployments. But it introduces sound design ideas: unmanned turret, active protection, light weight, a protecting crew capsule for the crew, high mobility. My guess is that other nations will copy its ideas to build many light, cheap, smart tanks, with lighter armor and a protecting crew capsule.
Good point. Those western h 8 ters literally don't understand how valuable that design is.
But it's weight is not light, it's a heavy tank design. As with any tank, it's weight increases with times, due to upgrades, it has already been increased in armata as well ,as it went through several iterations of improvement and armor enhancements... and something tells me that it will increase even more in 2024.
making yourself dependent from countries you may potentially go to war with for parts to build your tanks is just pure genius.
Selling advanced military equipment componentry to countries you may go to war with is also genius. But then we've come to expect nothing less from the French.
I'm French. Don't worry the weapon we sell to our customers, are not as efficient as the real ones we have.
@@BM-jy6cb The Americans were selling oil to Japan before Pearl Harbor. I refuse to believe they didn't suspect a war was gonna happen (intelligence department).
BOT your channel has no content.
It's not like it was their decision - it's not easy to establish high-tech industry, especially if your country is so corrupt that tryiing to throw money at the project just fills someone's pockets along the way instead.
But even at much lower levels of corruption you can see serious issues Western countries have with supply lines for various necessary stuff starting either in China or in countries likely to be on the frontline if a war in South-East Asia breaks out...
M1 tanker here from the 80's. I am not sold on unmanned turrets. It sure was nice for the Commander and loader to stick their heads out for maneuvering, map reading, just knowing what was going on. You are not always engaged, so their are plenty of times you can safely ride like that. I know there is GPS one, but I'd not rely on that too much. You gotta have mad map skills to be a great tanker.
Yup. A great many things seem plausible, sensible and even desireable on paper, until they collide with reality.
Really because last I checked GPS was exactly why the coalition won against Saddam.
@@emberfist8347it was one of many reasons.
@@emberfist8347 Right on. Just saying that map reading is still important, as there are a number of situations where it might nit be available. And if ur lost, ur not in the fight.
@@MadnerKami Also, the law of unintended consequences. I can imagine when those fancy cameras fail, you'll see someone riding on top of the turret so can see what's up, and not run over your infantry! With a long commo cord stretched and tangled😁😁. I hope the at least weld a hook on top to hang onto.
Seeing the tank smoking gave me a flashback then.... I was at an airshow once and there was a tank near me who decided, in the middle of a crowd of civilians within touching distance, to make a smoke shield. I have asthma so it was an immediately suffocating cloud i couldnt escape quick enough.... 😮
It's smoking on purpose to deflect infrared !
What I did not realise until recently is that the number of a Russian tank is its approximate design/manufacture date. For example a T 70 was designed around 1970. Presumably this T 14 was designed around 2014.
Kinda like this, but its not precise
t70 is ww2 tank
Дружище это танк разработан с древнейших времён тоесть 33 года назад
@@werionisit's not the same tank at t-95
The design of the T-14 starts around 2010 after the canselation of the Object.195 (or T-95). I think it was publicaly revealed in 2015 for the first time.
Really important to quote British Defense Officials that have in the past given us enlightening revelations about Russian shovels and the always impending depletion of Russian missiles and ammunition.
😂💯
And how is their supply situation going then? Seems they are doing a great job of building interbellum style defenses, including dragons tooth and then still losing their ground…
@@rubenskiii its 7 months now, they never went passed the dragon tooths.
I love how in so many action vids of this tank the turret is spinning. It actually looks like they just wound up the thing and let it go. I have to assume, based on the total lack of sightings of this tank in ANY war zone in the world (they claimed it has been used in Syria, the most public and televised war in history. Try to find a single video of it in action. Ditto Ukraine; I've seen some vids that show it cruising in the country, that could have been shot anywhere.) This is just another parade weapon; looks pretty at shows, can barely perform in the field.
It failed even in a parade. Broke down in a cloud of smoke. The engine is hopelessly bad.
Thats because they cut and paste the footage of the turret to make it seem like its very long, its actually a small fragment displaying the turrets two way stabilization and turret rotation speed. Every armored vehicle is one armor penetrating shell away from being a fireball, its some fascade that "our tanks are so much better"
Well, if there was a video they probably filmed it themselves. I guess they didn't like what they saw or they'd be broadcasting it to the moon and back.
@@bcluett1697 It was promotional material from the arms production company, like Western arms makers make for their tanks, I dont know why everybody is looking into this so hard.
The "turret" is actually a radar unit.
So happy for these videos, the weekend has never begun before I can log off and enjoy your informational pieces. Keep up the good work! Big fan!
I have to correct you on a fundamental statement you made. Russia was never "The biggest tank manufacturing nation of all time". That was the The Soviet Union, an industrial power with a collective GDP and population ten times bigger than Russia. Russia is only a tiny shadow of what the Soviet Union was, so no real surprise that it's tank development and manufacturing capability are now very poor. However, this is a fantastic video with such a great explanation of the background and development that went before. Thanks for posting.
*The important conclusion therefore is that the pace of per capita economic development in Soviet Russia was practically the same as in modern Russia.*
*There is a difference though. Despite the fact that per capita GDP growth rates were approximately the same and GDP grew faster from 1945-1960, a contemporary Russian is **_twice as rich_** as his/her counterpart in 1960.*
@@nzer57 I don't follow how your conclusion flows from the preceding discussion? Please explain.
Re: relative richness over that period, I would have thought it would be a bit more than double? Doubling in 60 years from 1960 to 2020 is only a growth rate of 1.3% per annum. I don't know what information there is on GDP growth in USSR and Russia.
Rumor says the new T14 Armata tank can fire its turret even higher while same time barbecuing its crew than older Russian tanks
Veri funny man
Really great video, I appreciated the in-depth dive into Soviet-era tank design philosophy.
Russia lost 2.000 tank but they still have 10.000 more.
Simply an OUTSTANDING VIDEO. By far the best I have seen on the T-14.👍
It doesn't answer its titular question though
watch lazerpig videos about the t14
Lol.
2:15 Centurion? Yeah Centurion Mark 3 was fitted with a twin plane Stabiliation system in 1948 I believe. I think that the Russians started fitting twin plane stabilizers in the mid 50s, T55, etc.
He said first twin stabilized tank GUN, unless he is perhaps referring to a behind the scenes thing before that that didnt enter service until later.
"In 1948, the British Centurion Mk. 3 featured the first two-plane stabilization system in a production tank, while 1954 saw the introduction of the STP-1 stabilizer complex for the T-54A, and similar systems would be implemented on virtually all Soviet tanks from then on."
If anyone thinks that the production of tanks in the USSR was a mess, you have no idea what was going on in the navy, where each shipyard tried to produce not just one, but a whole series of ships, so that its director had more independence and influence in the party hierarchy.
Another DW classic - and thank you Bovington for all this amazing content!
Enough fore lock tugging . . sugar is bad for the health
Thank you, very good summary. New to me was the length of the APFSDS penetrator. I had understood that in previous tanks the ammunition was two-parted, thus limiting the length of the penetrator and thus it's effectiveness
Two part ammunition doesn't limit the length of the penetrator, it can potentially allow for a longer penetrator. The size of the ammunition storage and handling infrastructure limits the length of the penetrator.
yeah vaccum 1 is 900mm and vaccum 2 is 1000mm, there was rumors than the 152mm gun that was canceled could of fired a projectile twice as powerful as the 125mm thats on the t14
That amount of force doesn't even have to penetrate... Or will separate the turret, or roll over another tank...
@@InkandFish555 In trusty, old-school designs like a few of those common in the west one limiting factor is also the weight of the ammunition, as anything very much heavier than a standard 120mm round gets difficult for one loader to handle manually. Having heavier ammunition be two-part could have other potential advantages besides space saving in an automatic turret such as the one in this fancy parade vehicle.
the T14 and the SU57...legends of their time...literally.
Always on Action outside their intended Purposes
Personally i believe the primary reason for the downsizing of T-14 production and increase in T-90 production and T-72 upgrading is that the russians realise that the first casualty of high-tech war, is high-tech war itself. the t-90, t80 and t-72 have proven to be more than effective, and theres not yet any point to use the t-14.
It's probably a big cost and procurement, along with a logistical factor in play as well. Russia would likely have had to dismantle at least part of their existing T-90 production lines, along with the T-80/T-72 upgrade facilities in order to free up a sizeable enough capable workforce, and to create new facilities for housing the would-be T-14 assembly lines. Not to mention all the spare parts and extra components that likewise have had to be produced and shipped to the front lines, an ordeal that Russia is already having some serious problems with in their existing tank fleet.
Russia would, in this case, have also had to produced the tools necessary to create the machinery necessary for producing the T-14 en-masse, along with all the components needed to repair and re-field damaged units. This is likewise something Russia is having quite serious problems with in their existing tank fleet.
EDIT: I don't think switching over to the T-14 in the middle of a war is a sound tactical move on the part of the Kremlin. Doing so doesn't make any logical sense to me.
@@Nick-rs5if Exactly, theres no reason to switch at this point in time, and doing so would waste resources that are much better used elsewhere. A single t-14 costs about the same to make as about 250 lancets, and one is far better proven at making short work of western equipment.
The Deputy minister of defense meant to say "There is currently no need to mass produce the T-14, because it doesn't work and we can't afford it"
Or he needs a new yacht
T-90m can fight any existing targets, so you better produce them.
Also t-90 is most tested platform, so it incredible reliable
It does work but its very expansive
@@lvivct If he needs a new yacht, he would announce that they will build 3000 T14s and then steal the money for those T14s to buy his own yacht
I mean why build a T-14 really, The US don't build a new tank every time they need an upgrade they just upgrade the Abram to fight modern needs, same can be done with the T-80s and T-90s. And even Britain's "New" Challenger 3 is some Challenger 2s being upgraded and given a new name.
As a design concept of putting the crew in one highly protected area low as possible makes a lot of sense, but in order to get away with that you do need some serious high tech and the question is simply one of cost, what is cheaper a higher risk of loosing crew or a vastly more expensive combat machine in procurement and operation.
IMO people MASSIVELY overplay how much compute power goes into military systems for a combat vehicle. For example lets look at western aircraft. F-16 of the 1990's type. Do you know the popular computer game DCS world fully simulates, real time, the full avionic systems of an F-16, at least the declassified parts. Meanwhile the sim it also makes demands of the player's computer to render the sim, to simulate the effect of radar beams, run the AI the digital enemies, and model the flight of the simulated aircraft, and all of this real-time. And it runs on commonly available desktop PC's, sure good "Gamer" grade ones, but still common civilian equipment. And the reason to point this out is how little compute power military systems need.
Its not unreasonable, IMO, to guess that all the systems of a T-14 could, in academic theory, be run off the compute power of a late model iPhone. The big challenge with these systems is getting them absolutely bug free, crash free, and hardening the electronics to prevent failure. The actual compute demands are quite low compared to civilian computer systems. Remember calculating ballistics is a very exact math operation, and something a man can do on a napkin. So even the slowest can computers can manage it real time. People have managed tracking software on Raspberry Pi's and the like. And the rather dated systems in an M1A2 Abrams has less compute power than a Nintendo GameCube. They are absolutely still good enough to do the job otherwise they would be long since replaced, but its not like they have super computers.
Honestly the REAL cost of a tank is the raw steel that goes into it, and the heavy manufacturing to build it.
And I think even for Russia, crew is more valuable than equipment. After all crew skill makes all the difference. Consider the incredible success of the American Abram's in Iraq, and then the Saudi's absolutely dismal losses in Yemen using export Abrams.
It’s a tall vehicle though. It’s tall and heavy lol.
it would have been a good idea if they didn't invade ukraine, that tank would have been way better for small conflicts or foreign operation instead of convetional war (it would be great in conventional too if they had enough of them wich clearly isn't the case and we don't even know how it realy performs)
If a three man tank team is worth materially more to an army than the tank itself then it pays to have them in a heavily armoured capsule whilst the rest of the tank is more lightly armoured.
This gives the ability to make a tank that is equally well armed as the Country's near peer adversaries, lighter, and more mobile yet with a crew that are at least equally if not more protected to by the armoured crew capsule.
Finally a reliable source.
Imagine the price of a captured T14. Great Vid Mr Willey
Whatever the price of scrap steel is times the weight of it.
Imagine the price of an uncaptured one.
Worth it's weight in tin
Well, considering there's probably a tank museum that could use a Panther engine, there's got to be some intrinsic value to it, there.
Yeah, the Russians are also looking forward to capture one.
The problem is that this tank fails to provide what it was primarily designed for....crew safety. If you look at footage of the tank, in particular in and around the crews compartment, you will undoubtedly notice how thin the armour is on the top of section of the vehicle. It is literally only an inch or so thick, far less than is needed to withstand modern top down ATGMs or anti tank munitions dropped by drones! The crew would appear to stand no better chance if hit in this portion of the tank than they would in any of the Russian T series tanks. The only benefit is that it is probably less likely to experience a cook off that would instantly toast the crew, but that being said I'm not convinced that ammunition detonation isn't still a likely cause for these vehicles to be damaged and knocked out, even if the crew do survive it!
Yes, just like the Abrams, this tank was not designed for the modern era of drone warfare. I think we're not seeing them in battle because Russia realizes they are not going to be effective and that the nature of warfare has changed so much that MBTs are on the precipice of obsolescence.
Every modern tank is vulnerable to top attack...Abrams was obliterated by FPV drones....so was Bradley and Leopards. Challenger 2 got obliterated by obsolete 1980s Konkurs missiles.
@@interpl6089 But they were much older designs. The T14 was advertised as having the ultimate in crew protection on the modern battlefield! Obviously they kind of made a mistake in that presumption😁
@@Altair885The only one making mistake is you. T-14 has Malachite ERA on the roof of the ''crew capsule'' which will protect against ATGMs and especially Drones...It has Composite armor underneath that. You can see that when the hatches are open. On the crew hatches there's a good layer of composite armor visible. You can't put ERA on a crew hatch. The crew is well protected against drones and missile...however the problem comes with so called ''mission kill'' which is basically destroyed optics or disabled gun.
@@interpl6089 Guess we'll see, well, if they ever actually put one on the battlefield! 🤔😁
It doesn't really matter how good the design is - in the end it is all in the ability of the designer to field them in big enough numbers, train the crew, provide maintenance and suitable replacements in the big enough rate.
I mean, that has been the rule of war since the dawn of time but maybe the best seen in WWII. Germans rushed some designs that had a promise but required more time for development (Me-262 and StG 44), but it didn't matter as they could not build, train for or replace them in a big enough numbers.
You'd think that Russians, out of all people, would have learned that lesson because it was their strategy of outproducing the enemy with "decent enough" weapons rather than creating the "ultimate weapon" that helped them push back the tide.
So the talk about how good T-14 or Su-57 or what ever is, is pointless. Weapon systems do not exists in a vacuum and on their own. When you include all the parameters what I mentioned here, there is still a question of how well it integrates with the overall army it serves it, how well it coordinates, how good are its support units...
Military is a SYSTEM, a very COMPLEX SYSTEM. An airplane, a tank, a ship - on their own they are just expensive pieces of scrap metal and electronics.
Yep, its like the ultimate German tank the King Tiger or whatever it was and the K-Wagen from WW1. Both tanks were amazing and could probably destroy everything, but for every 1 Tiger made they'd be like 10 other tanks.
I remember this was the philosophy of the Germans and US in WW2, the panzers were superior in everyway but the US had so many Sherman tanks and were outproducing the Panzers that any loss of the Panzer hurt the Germans more than the loss of a Sherman to the US.
In the modern day the US is like Germany and the Russia is like the US. The USSR/Russia VASTLY outnumber the tanks of the US, thats the superior advantage that they have. Any loss of an Abrams does more damage than any T72 loss. Now, with the T14 the table is flipped. The fact that Putin didn't follow typical USSR doctrine just goes to show you how delusional he is. Its the same story with how bad the AK-12 is compared to the AK74M and AK100 series.
@@rjhick1 I would not be quick to compare US to Germany and Russia to US in that way. Yes, Abrams is a superior tank to T-72 (and newer) and more expensive... but USA had, and has, the ability to produce, field, repair and replace those Abrams on the same scale as Russia has with T-72.
So I would not say that it hurts USA more to lose Abrams than it hurts Russia to lose T-72. Frankly, even though T-72 is overall cheaper and simpler to produce, Russian economy and industrial capacity is so bad that I think it still hurts them more to lose MBT like that than it hurts USA.
Abrams is more on pair with T-90 I think, and Russia has a hard time of fielding those, because they came around when the USSR was going down so not that many were made. The reason why T-72 is still the most seen tank is because it came around at the height of USSR industrial might.
For small arms, I'd agree with you. But for these tanks, US economy is still so much bigger than Russian one that even a loss of such an expensive tank as Abrams is easier for US to withstand than for Russia to lose a 50 year old tank.
Love how he put a miniature figure of t-14 beside him on an old soviet KV-1 😁👌
*Thanks for the correction guys.😆👌🏼👍
i am about 95% sure that is a KV1.
But either way it is indeed a nice idea
I think it is a KV 1 tank.
That’s a KV1
Thanks for the corrections guys, much appreciated. 👌👍
KV1.
Great video! A unique insight into the vehicle being discussed but also the current Russian battlefield situation and tank build / supply situation.
Do you also still believe in Saddam's WMD? 🤣
What would these corny dudes know about battlefield realities?
Its designed for tank to tank combat which even in Ukraine is rare. Most tanks in Ukraine are being used against infantry and fortified positions hence why the Russians are using up old gear. If you se tank on tank its usually a T90. Same as the fellon. Its a stealth fighter that isn't needed to fia handful of mig29 and su25s
That is the most copium I have ever seen. If they have this advanced tech, why don't they use it instead of getting their asses handed to them by Ukraine? The answer? They don't have this advanced tech. And the SU-57 felon is not a stealth fighter, it has the RCS of a clean Super Hornet, and exposed engines that give it a heat signature similar to the sun. It's at best a reduced visibility 4.5 gen fighter, with mostly 4th gen tech thrown into a 4.5 gen airframe.
Thank you! 🙂
Remote viewing has always been a problem, most recently with the KC-46 remote boom control station. It takes conscious effort to visualize which direction you are looking. A solution might be a "transparent hull", ie a cyclorama of screens surrounding the crew.
I've heard theories of using the F-35's camera system + a headset to allow operators to virtually see out of a vehicle without needing vision blocks or looking outside.
@@Appletank8 That's what I had in mind. I've heard the term "glass floor".
@@SteamCrane that would come in handy, though it's not a thing even in western tanks, though it would increase SA greatly. And one can be certain when it is released, it will be in a US tank, not a Russian one
@@BoraHorzaGobuchul With both Russia and China, we are seeing the results of Central Planning, which substitutes some corrupt official's limited knowledge of what is needed for peoples' individual decisions. If there had been freedom, both countries might have gotten serious about microelectronics, along with many other needed technologies.
Or simply add a digital indicator to the HUD or screen which shows you the turrets relative direction to the hull.
Commonly done in videogames, but it does help you visualize where are you going, what position the turret is, and what are you looking at on a quick glance.
Its called the T-14.. because they only have that many running lol
I was on my way to Cornwall and accidently bumped into the Bovington Tank Museum. Boy was I, a World of Tanks player, pleasantly surprised.
Will be interested to see the first T14 at Bovington!
Along with the ukranian tractor that towed it there 😂
That's if it cab defeat the Ukrainian Tractors 🚜
I think Challenger will appear in Kubinka much earlier. We’re waiting ! 🥂
I think we see first Abrams at Kubianka museum. It is coming.
@@tomk3732 Challenger too, and the captured Leopard tanks lined up next to German WW2 tanks..
The 14 stands for the number of units that will be produced.
21 have been produced, more in the future
*Numbers of the functioning ones
@@dyddsko "more in the future 🤡" Explain how you think that is possible.
@@lochnessspeedwerkz6557 Well Russian MOD claimed to be starting mass production 200 units per year. If that happens is yet to be seen. However we likely will see it used in the coming weeks or months in combat. It isn't surprising we haven't seen them used yet. Russia doesn't want to risk them being captured. However if any large Ukrainian offensive does happen using western tanks, expect the possibility of T-14 being used for the first time.
@@-Zevin- Russians claim a whole lot of things dont they? If you believe any of that hogwash, I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.
'Beleaguered and hard-pushed Russian army'
It's not looking that way now....
Best Russian Tank,no doubt about that, but obviously to expensive for mass production.
Concept of crewless turret is actually quite valid - especially with advances in electronics. For instance - T-55 tank turret weights 9.2 tons while whole tank weight is 36.5 tons. That's already 25% of whole tank weight, which could be used on other parts of tank.
Dunno about T-14 Armata specs , however I think it might be more durable then people actually think.
No, not at all. The crew must be in the tower and among them there must be a black guy throwing new shells into the barrel.
@@OwlsStudio lel
@@TanksInSpace_ 🤮
@@TanksInSpace_ ....and he was a woman before
the crew is protected in an 800mm rha equivalent thick armored capsole. The front of the hull is said to be 1500mm of protection vs chemical and 900mm of protection vs kinetic threats. I cant remember seeing any details about the turret, side and rear armor of the hull nor the engine deck. But the AFGHANIT aps is said to be able to stop kinetic projectiles travelling at 1800meters per second . Malachit ERA is said to be twice as effective as Relikt ERA that the T-90M, T-80bvm and T-72b3s uses.
12:35 - The SLA 16 was the first X layout engine to be used in tanks, however it was not the first X layout engine , that being designed by Henry Ford. You cannot realisticly make an argument that the A85 is a copy of a WW2 engine when the only thing they really have in common is the type, they are both an X layout.
It would be the same as saying that the Abrams copied the german BMW GT101 engine from WW2 as that was the first gas turbine engine used on tanks , which would also be a very unrealistic statement, again the only similarly between the 2 being the type.
The only experience that russia has with this type of engine comes from german prototypes from ww ii that never worked. From the available pictures you can clearly see a lot of similarities between the german ww ii engine and the engine from the t14. Only a fool would think that russia of all places would be able to make a concept work that up to today noone in the world could make sufficiantly reliable.
Seems they took their "facts" from same Lazerpig sources. Video clearly biased.
They really want undermine own reputation by such cheap moves lately.
@@LeonmitchelliGalette haha yeah keep believing that russia came out with an x layout engine by themselfes :D
Since they only built 20, its pointless to even speculate on the T-14. It will likely never see combat. I have to wonder if they even do more than just drive in front of Red Square for parades.
Almost certainly not. Even if it was as good as claimed, Russia lacks the money in order to produce more than that. Its kinda like with the SU 57. Even if it was as good as they claimed, they're in such low numbers that its not gonna matter.
@@invidatauro8922 Exactly. The US could make 20 of the most advanced tanks on earth with incredible abilities. But that 20 would be half the defense budget for R+D.
every new technology has to be proven on the battlefield first, armata as modular concept is very likely to show good evolutionary capabilities. I would not dare to underestimate it
Yeah just like the abrams x and that new shitty panther.
Yes, but given the “lies” and “misinformation” by the Russians, the “Kinzhal”, Russians highly touted so called ‘Hypersonic’ Kinzhal Missiles is a fugazi.
So…yes, but I believe the actual battle field results. Fugazi up the ying-yang. Lies and misinformation.
The russians are playing a game of "liars poker".
Liars...liars...pants on fire.
@@sirex9244the KF51 panther came before the Abrams X, the Abrams X is a knockoff of a next-gen tank.
I don't see the great leap in any tank technology yet. Using them properly seems too increase their survivability more than any new tech.
Like the kinzhal?
For those who might missed the first minutes of the video, it was mentioned that some of the info here, taken from various internet sources, maybe propaganda. One of these is the notion (mentioned by Lazerpig) that the Armata uses an engine derived/inspired/copied from a German engine. I tried to find evidence but I only found one website that seems to be dubious.
Edit: Lazerpig has made a new video where.he detailed his research here. Though he did admit that it wasn't definite as Russia hasn't declassified info regarding it.
yeah.. better watch redeffect videos. more accurate
I think LazerPig is a source now...
@@gerfand a very wrong source
@@ASlickNamedPimpback CZcamsrs are not a source, but yes, its bogus claims on top of that
@@dtrain1634lazerpig is a youtuber and openly admit his bias. This does not mean he willfully shares misinformation but does mean he make different choices in sourcing and presentation.
Does the T14 offer the helicopter turret as an option, or is that standard with Russian armored vehicles? 🎉
That’d be their lesser known active defence system, “The Iron Tulip”.
They are using nato approach of armoured explosive bussel. So. No.
I doubt it's as good as previous generations when it comes to how high it can be launched when forcibly dislodged... don't think that matters. Remember how those Soviet tanks try to be lighter than NATO ones? Armata still tries to. One way it aims to achieve it is through that unmanned turret. Which can be translated to: our turret does not need armor. Which means NATO can shoot the turret, disable the gun and change the T-14 into a very expensive 3 man taxi. Or at least on the good days when the motor runs. I also find it strange that the reverse speeds have been left out. For all claims concerning mobility, Russian tank reverse speeds have been so poor, they tend to turn their tanks around on the spot in order to get away quicker...
@@FrancisFjordCupola how does an unmanned turret translate into no armor for the turret automaticly ?
like leopards in syria and coming soon to all the garbage the west has sent ukraine
T55 was my tank during my service between 1973-1975 and during my reserve service until 1982. I was a tank commander in the IDF and those tanks were captured during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. I started as a driver and a 5'11" tall, that was a torture. I could never sit straight in the drive compartment. I ended up my service as a commander and again, the ergonomic of this tank was awful. When the hatches are fully closed, you basically sit on top of the gunner. This tank is not for the claustrophobics. Mechanically the biggest issue was the clutch. Those burn off like crazy. Also, those tanks were designed for cold weather and they got easily overheated in the hot weather of the Sinai peninsula.
Stop stealing peoples stuff then 🤣 Make your own!
@@michaelbiri6676 I'd say strop starting wars you cannot win, and you won't have your stuff stolen... 🙃
Is much more cheaper and better just picking the t90m and puting a better reverse speed on it with an active protection system.
Now with the war demand they are expanding their production of t72b3m and t90m and because of that i think Armata is going to a dead end or at least a completely stop on its program.
I see the similarity with how during WW II the Soviets opted for the older t34 design instead of more modern t44. Probably the same fate awaits the Armata project.
Good to hear that the T-14 is receiving more critical (if still largely speculative) analysis these days as I’ve had enough of interminable Wikipedia-educated WoT players insisting that a tank _yet to be combat proven_ can still somehow be the absolute bestest in the world like evaaaaarrrrr, etc. 😁
Nah, its kinda same thing related to almost any MBT in the world: despite barely having combat situations, any tank X is claimed to be the best because of Y, Z and ... . Even M1 Abrams which probably has the top score of the battlefield hours could and should be percieved critically because it hasn't got any real resistance in fight, percing obsolete Iraq tanks from great distance in mostly flat desert land with great air support. How it would show itself in hupothetical conflict in urbanized area against modern opponents - we can only guess.
@@true_xander "Nah, its kinda same thing related to almost any MBT in the world:"
Not really. The rest have actually been seen in numbers in battle.
" it hasn't got any real resistance in fight,"
That's more doctrine than design. US doctrine is combined forces. If you find yourself alone in an M1, countless things have gone wrong before anyone has had a chance to shoot at you.
@@true_xander MBT's aren't made for MOUT combat. Any MBT is vulnerable in a urban environment where it's main gun is just about useless as engagement ranges can be measured in dozens of meters.
@@wisenber Pretty much whats going on in Syria
@@true_xander ow it would show itself in hupothetical conflict in urbanized area against modern opponents - we can only guess.
That would be a tactical failure.
Is the M1 Abrams designed for city assault?
Not really, street fighting is the Akilles heal of all armour.
Having the right tool for the job, and knowing the limitations and best use of all your tools, is vital.
The T-14 got promoted to a T-34. Saw one in the last Moscow parade.
I love how they only had a SINGLE t-34-85 for the tank section
@@Dargesh890 yknow they do that with every victory parade?
@@localdude3702 No they dont. This is the first time they only brought a single tank to the [moscow] victory parade, they were usually accompanied by another 30-50 tanks.
@@correctionguy7632 from what I heard there was a public backlash last year about having tanks parading instead of being in battle. It’s all PR anyone who really thinks that Russia doesn’t have tanks must be medicated
@@joek600 No one is seriously suggesting Russia doesnt have any tanks. For the moscow parade their options were to do what they did, pull tanks from the front or cancel the parade in its entirety. IMO the best option would have been the last one but they were all lose-lose situations in their own way.
Great video, thank you.
Very well done!
Very informative and objective. So far the T-14 has been as much of a success on the battlefield as the WWII Maus, looks good on paper and gives the model makers another kit to make.
_> Very informative and objective._
Just like Saddam's WMD and Ghost of Kiev 😆
@Meat SaladExcuse me, Russia is at war. Where do you live in a cave or something.
@Meat Salad because they are destroyed and captured..
Its currently in the SMO in the rear being used for defensive roles.
@@Panzer-IV-70VTank-DestroyerSMO its not declared war but you will know when Russia does
rheinmetall took it very serious when russians claimed to have a better cannon and named their new tankdesign panther again
I wonder if they fixed their transmission.
They built 20 of them, and of those only 3 can move under their own power. Only for a few hours of course, then they need days of maintenance.
I doubt we'll see them on anything but a parade route.
What an impressive machine!
Proof that brains and not bloated military budgets is what really matters.
What are you saying?! The T-14 doesn’t exist they have never been used in a battle.
@@D1ckdickley "they have never been used in a battle."
Sure, this is the sort of information you are not going to find in the western media and the Russian media has been blocked so all that is left for you people is just follow whatever your corrupt government says!
Enjoy darkness!
@@acidbot666no videos😴
Another absolutely fantastic report! Your research seems to be top notch, the footage highlights the oral presentation perfectly.
There are some miths there. I have direct experience of being inside the turrets of both the T-64 and T-90 and they aren't that lacking in terms of space (by the way, I'm 1,86m). It felt like being seated in the front seat of a car. I had plenty of elbow room and everything seemed to be well thought in terms of ergonomics. Also most of the Russian tank-men I came to know were about my size.
So is it a myth that tankers had to be 5'1-5'3 back in the day, or did they improve the space in vehicles as time went on after the T-34 and T-54/55?
@@ajohnymous5699 I can only talk about my experience, but T54/55 (I have no experience with T34) is considerably less spacious and has poorer ergonomics than a T64 and a T90.
I sure do like my miths
Their crap worked out real well !! 💥💥💥
I think thanks are sometimes overrated. A stealth combat platoon with anti-tank missiles could easily take out the tanks. Kamikaze drone would be able to do the same and 2-3 drones coming in from different directions could beat the tanks defenses.
So much great information here. Even the brief discussion of the size requirements of the previous tanks has relevance on what is happening on the battlefield that no one mentions. It isn't easy to find 5'3" tankers today. Tanks for the great video!
No worries about that in russia. Malnutrition will keep children from growing too tall.
Not every country pumps their citizens full of hormones like the USA.
The transformations of even girls to women I saw in the USA literally scared me.
@@tranquilthoughts7233 Their average height is around 5'10"
😁
@@Anuj-1 and that's including the Asiatic regions of Russia. Slavs are generally taller than other Europeans.
“Claimed”, “According to Russian sources”, and “it’s believed” - these are very important phrases when dealing with this tank. And thanks you for touching on the history of its engine. LazerPig fan here.
Lazerpigs video about the t-14 demonstrates he knows absolutely nothing about engines and tanks.
As a tank nerd I physically couldn’t finish the video, that is how much stuff he blatantly made up.
@@schutzanzug4518 You should finish it - I understand the feeling you’re describing - but personally, when I disagree with something, I feel a strong need to fully understand their argument - and like or hate LP, he does attempt to put his argument(s) throughout his videos.
Excellent history and description. Thank you.
If becomes increasingly clear that it no longer makes sense to put humans inside tanks or armored vehicles when the vehicles can be operated remotely. Drones are the future in the air, in the sea, and on land.
After serving in the armoured infantry I can't fathom the crew not being able to poke there head up and take a physical look at the battle picture. I totally agree it breaks alot of basic design philosophy.
The ambushed Chally shows you the danger of relying on electronic sights and cameras alone. A few paint bombs and paint sprayers and you're now blind and panicking! A low tech solution to a high tech problem!
@@LondonSteveLee I don't know how easy it is to sneak up on one with paint bombs, but if there's a way, it will be a very real problem
@@PeterJavi drop paint with drones?
@@kade4198 if you can drop paint then you might as well drop something that can penetrate the top armor.
@@timmyteehee9490 Drones with paint buckets or paint guns can be smaller and cheaper than something made to carry a real weapon I suppose. This would make it more viable to use them in larger numbers.
Dropping knowledge 👍 I DIG IT
Thanks!
Thank you for a wonderful and informative video!
I think the T14 has a really innovative design.
If everything works as intended that is.
The many problems that it has make it unlikely to succeed.
-the engine must be reliable. If i understand it correctly it was reliable in stationary use like running generators, using it on the move is a completely different thing.
-the autoloader must be made reliable. in a T72 the gunner can reach any part of the autoloader and there are few problems he cannot fix with a hammer, a can of oil and a "SUKA BLYAT".
In a T14 there is no way to reach the autoloader but to get out and access it from the top, unprotected, under enemy fire.
-as mentioned the electronic parts are made out of unobtainium.
I believe that the engine controlling sensors might be needed to reach acceptable reliability of the engine, if they cannot be obtained engine reliability might be unreachable.
I suspect that a fully automatic autoloader might also need electronics to function.
-Training, if the claim is true the T14 that "broke down" before a parade just had the parking brake engaged, and the driver tried to start it without releasing the parking brake.
To run such a sophisticated system you need better trained crews. "contract soldiers" rather than conscripts, but the russians want to increase the percentage of professionals in their army anyway.
...
All of this is also overshadowed by the one big question: can we believe any of the claims about the T14 ?
Answer is no
Ruzzia always overhypes it’s capabilities
You said it
Parade Brake
Can believe claim? Now I fking wonder what inside propeller make fire range go 12km (they referenced M1 have 3km)
@@02suraditpengsaeng41 the 12 Km is realistic for indirect fire(as artillery) the 3000 is direct fire.
seems someone deliberately mixed up the numbers to make things sound more impressive.
@@ulrichkalber9039 well, in official AD btw
bruh
@@02suraditpengsaeng41 also 3000 for Abrams is effective range, 13000 for t14 is probably absolute range.
The key problem, again, is if everyone is on the take - what's left? Great vid!
T14 was planned under the concept of network-centric warfare as a means of reconnaissance and issuing targets for artillery and aviation. But while it was being made, cheap drones appeared for this. Moreover, existing tanks have been used for indirect fire, where the fire is corrected from the air by a drone. Therefore, such a battle control tank has lost its meaning to a certain extent. Most likely, there will be a new version with a 152-mm gun compatible with field artillery guided munitions and tight integration with reconnaissance unmanned vehicles and the ability to fire from a closed position like self-propelled guns. Only with protection like a tank. And then this tank itself will be made unmanned, as it was supposed at the very beginning.
Spot on report! Thank you!
The T-14 seems to have been made irrelevant as a war weapon as soon as RUS invaded UKR. Most of its essential parts are no longer available to RUS since these parts come from NATO countries and NATO allies. Relying on your greatest adversaries for supplying essential components and then attacking UKR in a clear unprovoked invasion is not a good way to keep the supply chain flowing.
From my point of view, you are totally correct. Except for the "unprovoked invasion". Sure Putin started the war, but the West was involved in the escalation since 2008 for sure.
The parts are still available to Russia. They just domestically made them. Proof of this was the recent equipping T62's and old T72b's with thermal imaging
@@garliclover7991 🤯 Damn the west and their 2014 invasion of Crimea. Russia gonna protect their friend from evil America.
@@garliclover7991 Goal of the Invasion was to Annex Territory as happened in Sept 2022.
Any other explenation is a Rus (pun intented), and if you believe it just shows that russian Propagana works.
Russia was never afraid of NATO; when Finnland joined NATO the fins build... fence, while the Russians removed Tanks and S-300 because these were needed in Ukraine.
@@garliclover7991 it was unprovoked, thats why russians need to lie about every aspect of the war. EVERYTHING they publicize ends up being almost completely fabricated. They wouldnt need to try so hard to convince people if the war was even remotely provoked.
Appreciate the serious discussion of Russian tanks. Crediting them where its due, and not getting mired down in current-day politics and propaganda.
The delivery of this talk is calm and authoritative. No hyperbole, and time is taken to explain that the claimed capabilities of the vehicle are probably propaganda. Excellent job.
Unmanned turret is a great idea tbh.
I seem to remember the M1 Abrams having a lot of teething problems when it was designed and produced. Except we had the American public to fire hose tax money at it to fix the problems. I think the Armata has lots of innovative features that need to have the bugs worked out but in the end it could be a fine tank. I particularly like the crew compartment and the emphasis on crew protection.
yeah...so tell it to the Russian crews that goes...pop goes the weasel whenever the top turret blows.
Do you think the "tax dollars" spent for development come anywhere "close" to the amount of Rubles "siphoned" throughout their "KLEPTOCRACY" and general staffs and not into developments of their weapon systems.
The Ukraine war has revealed the inept military and "hardly" functional military equipment. For God's sake they send personnel carriers out on flat tires. Tanks and supporting apparatus is "nearly" non-existence. They had to pillage local convenience stores for supplies.
@@hcf1956 Yes, you have propaganda like Goebbels.
@@vladimirnikolskiy yeah comrade. You rusktes are doing a helluva job kill women and children. Ecoterrorism as well as war crimes, Baghdad Bob.
T14 had only one problem- engine/powertran unit mass production. All the other is ok
NATO tanks are getting blown up and incapacitated left and right as well. Despite their supposed technical superiority.
(And good luck repairing them!)
The Russian tanks otoh are fairly easy to repair, and has better maneuverability.
For the current conflict, their existing tanks fit the bill.
Hopefully we will get to see more of the Armata after the war.
6:32 As a joke, I thought of the crew being restricted to midgets to allow for a greater number of people, but then it actually came up in the video.
Soviet army was army of conscripts. And you can't choose where do you want to serv. They were getting bunch of young man in a room. And officer choosing where to send them. Most people I know, who served in tank unit around 150-160cm high or something like 5'