The Truth About Russia's T-14 Armata Tank
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 12. 2021
- Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/31eA2Ck and use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: -7 Days Premium Account -250k credits -Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) -3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger -131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6) Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video! The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming Portal.
The T-14 Tank is either the world's greatest... or worst tank depending on who you ask. In this video we attempt to cut through all of the Russian Propaganda and Western misinformation in order to find out the truth about the T-14 Armata Tank.
It has an more powerful 125mm 128A2-1M main tank gun, next generation explosive reactive armor, and a top speed 20 kmph faster than its competitors. But does any of it actually work? Should the Russian's have taken a page out of their old playbook from WW2 tank design that made them so successful with tanks in the first place?
Follow Instagram for live updates: / cappyarmy
Merchandise T shirts: cappysoutpost.myspreadshop.com/
Email for inquires: capelluto@taskandpurpose.com
Discord channel invite: / discord
#TANK #MILITARY #ARMY - Zábava
Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/31eA2Ck and use the code TANKMANIA to get for free:
-7 Days Premium Account
-250k credits
-Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5)
-3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger -131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6)
Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video.
The promo code is only for new players who register for the first time on the Wargaming Portal.
Carbon fibre and carbon nanotubes are NOT the same thing. Carbon fibre draws it's strength from the fact its molecules are aligned (like a spider web). Carbon nanotubes are all one covalently bonded molecule, like a diamond. We cannot yet manufacture large objects from such a material.
First of all:
5:14 👍👍👍
Also, thanks information about Excelsior 👍
If there would be German B1 again - I'll find money for it, so - ping me.
The Reasons why Armata (All Armata Platforms) struggle to move into full production are known. It is primarily due to the high cost of procuring Electronics and Optics, wich are procured from western European manufacturers, wich are not delivering or delivering low quantities, due to Embargos and high penal tarrifs caused by Russias foreign politics like the Occupation of Krimea and the ongoing masked War in Donbas and eastern Ukraine, where unmarked russian military units are active in the combat zone
Fantastic video mate, good laugh! Well done
Most important question: How easily can it be towed with a tractor?
Might need two tractors if the deserting crew decides to put the parking brake before they leave
@@rayrobelo7262 Your "engage the parking brake" doctrine clearly makes you more qualified than most Russian generals. I heard two positions have opened up.
🤣
🤣🤣
Far enough to put good Ukrainian fuel into it. . .
Apparently, designing 'the best tank in the world' is easier than actually building them.
Same as the tiger tank ahead of it's time so cost a fortune to make and hard to produce in big numbers.
@@huwdavies-tallon3305 👍
The biggest problem seems to be the engine
It does not deliver the horsepower of fuel efficiency that it was supposed to
Because it is underpowered ,it is over stressed and tends to catch fire
@@jamesricker3997
👍
Also which wins, the tank, or the anti-tank system. Right now, I believe the latest anti-tank systems are leaps beyond what any country is willing to put into a tank to actually survive a hit. Even active defense systems don't protect the crews from top down strikes such as from artillery, dropped bombs and some anti-tank missiles.
The 14 in T-14 comes from the overall number of battle worthy tanks of this model that have been constructed.
That's a realy optimistic astimate
thats actually wrong, they built 100 of them
@@SlavicUnionGaming They didn't, they have like 20-30 of them and some of those are prototypes. Russia planned to deliver first batch of 25 serials (I think) by the end of 2022.
@@Palach624 🤣🤣🤣🤣 never will happen.
@@jacksonteller1337 As I said, time will tell
Fun fact, the T-14 is ultra stealthy. So stealthy, it hasn't been seen in combat so far.
They are going to send him to war in 2023, that is, soon, but in general I want him to be added to War Thunder
@@deadtime7070 😅 That definitely would make the best use of the T-14 Armata.
@@deadtime7070 it’s 2023 Still don’t see em
You are a funny child, how do you like this fact? Armata is already destroying Nazis and mercenaries in Ukraine
It has also proven to be rather unreliable, which is a further reason. It also uses Italian built transmission, and gun barrels from Germany.
This seems like a pretty crazy tank. "Too bad" (or fortunately, depending on perspective) it's just gonna end up abandoned in the mud, without fuel or crew, because it lacks logistic support.
woah carefull there. they have been strategically placed as baricades they are serving that purpose very well :D. that was the tactic from the beginning
@@guitarhero16a Aha, I see. I'm not as tactically minded. I only went through basic training. I did work as a tools developer in sigint a while ago, but this particular tactic never came up. 😅
They better hope the whole tank is AI controlled when the demoralized crew jumps ship.
It's not in active service, due to it still being a prototype.
For what I know, they weren't even deployed... Like many "Next gen" Russian weapons, it doesn't seems to work well enough to be used in war XD
1:39 that's not an incident, that's ATT (anti tractor tow) system demonstration
they wanted the T-14 to be farmer-proof.
Ah they dont need it now farmers died
Does it come with tow attachments front and rear, does it have a “jack-in-the-box” gun mount?
@@oasis1282 no yesterday a tractor towed a t90
@@elitewavez4768 hello from Ukrainian-Canadian 🇺🇦🇨🇦
Слава России 🇷🇺
This tank is so stealthy that it even makes the money, allotted for its construction disappear
>has name written in the olbanian language
>has opinion on something russian
@@BEPrimAnim
>is russian bot
>funds to pay you have been used to buy commander yacht
>happy to survive on diet of reused plane liquor from coolant system
But the biggest question is: how high can the turret fly?
It's probably another paper tiger like the SU-75 Checkmate.
Unless they can sell shed loads around the world they cannot afford to build them for themselves.
Add to that the potential issue that not all systems are mature enough for active service and it leaves you with a nice idea for a tank and a few built to look good for the May Day parade on Red 🟥 Square.
You mean the su 57 femboy?
@@whipthemachine no the su-75 femboi
@@ms3862 oh my mistake lol
More Russian tanks have taken off then modern Russian planes😢
Exactly. And several of Russias overseas investors pulled out on both the T-14 and T-90 as they complained it wasn’t what they were promised. India got so sick of the tanks they were getting they started their own tank company.
In Russia even hear a joke: This tank uses such revolutionary stealth-technology, so nobody won't able to see it.
The Stealth technology is great. Completely invisible. But when it's engaged, they can't move, shoot or turn it off
@@glennjanot8128 russia actually did mass produce T-14 with stealth technology, it's just it so good that even their military can't see their tanks :D
Revolutionary...
Stealth...
I get it, I like it.... Ask Marx if he's still a Marxist...
@@podulox Would be quite hard to do, since he's been long dead ^^
@@glennjanot8128 maybe he just uses supreme communistic stealth technology. Maybe communism succedeed and we actually have secret communistic society living among us
You missed the most important question; does it come with the auto turret ejection system like every other Russian tank that stores ammo in the turret?
Yes it does
Yes....but wait, there's more.....the M-14's system is an "enhanced auto-turret ejector system".....(it flies farther).
Yes, but the armored compartments around the crew and the engine should, IN THEORY, allow the vehicle to bravely run away from the battlefield after the turret is destroyed.
@victor bruun The joke is about the autoloader exploding when hit which causes the turret and crew members to eject up to a 100 metres.
@victor bruun it's a joke. The way the autoloader is contructed on every Soviet / Russian tank since the T-72, any damage that breaches the the armor at the base of the. Turret WILL cause all the ammunition to cook off, which will "eject" the turret and the occupants thereof. Or at least their mortal remains, anyway.
Awesome looking tank, but I’m certain it’s likely overstated in capacity.
dictators, companies and armies lying? impossible!
I always find it funny that people take Russian specs literally rather than taking them with a grain of salt. After the cold war we found out almost everything they had was worse then they claimed and often even worse then the Americans thought. Russia has always had an issue with overstate their equipments performance and they tend to make a few, hand made custom prototypes that perform far better than their general production models which in turn are often worse than their export models since they go all out on the prototypes but can't afford quality production models. We see the same happening in Ukraine where almost all their equipment is far worse than anyone thought and they don't seem to have any of their claimed cutting edge weaponry and what little they do have performs terribly
@@arthas640 like that super fighter jet that everyone was afraid of in the west. Turns out it was only really usable as parade eye candy.
@@stevenrodriguez763 Russia has had a problem with that since their imperial days. They often lack the industrial capability and economy to produce competitive high tech equipment so they tend to get to the prototype and testing stage but simply cant afford to put the new stuff into production so they end up stopping after they have limited numbers of test models that they break out for parades, tests/shows, propaganda, etc. Even when it does enter production based off what I've read they often produce high quality test models and prototypes but when they enter production they seriously under perform, typically because they have to seriously cut corners due to funding problems and because production models have parts and materials that perform worse than they should due to shoddy quality. This is especially true if they're an export model which the Russians always produce at a lower quality then domestic models. It's a big reason why countries tend to go for American or European models first and only go with Russian if the west wont sell to them or if they cant afford it.
@@arthas640 horrendously overgeneralized statement. Nothing about the perception of Russian tech has changed before or after the 2022 invasion of ukraine. You could make a somewhat more reasonable argument if you meant the russian military as a fighting force in general, but there is nothing wrong with Russian tech. In fact a lot of it has proven to be very very good in this conflict.
Opposite of the unmanned turret design was the MBT70 project (prototypes, one of which I saw at APG), back when I had hair on my head, instead of my ears and nose. These placed the entire crew in the turret. It was disorienting in the extreme for the driver, is what I remember hearing.
MBT70 has all men in turret, including driver. Driver was solo in capsule, rotating counter to turrret, so he was all time seeing ahead, but the capsule was excentric, so he was oscilating left right back.....
We are witnessing what the lack of maintenance can do to a army, just wondering how the shortage of processors have delayed the production of this tank due to it's reliance on automation?
they're probably trying to figure out if they can actually use potatoes as a processor;]
LOL that assumes the T-14 has any of the systems they say it has or whether the whole thing is an elaborate con.
Given that they wanted to start production this year, it's probably not going to happen.
over 6 months for my New Mazda 3 so I will forgo my pre order for the T14 Convertible
You do realize that everything these days has a processor even manually driven cars.
I was a Tanker. Back in the late 80s there was an article in Armor Magazine about a Tank that had a two man crew, only one operated it at a time. All other crew duties other than driving was done by Vicky, Voice Integrated Computer.
They floated the idea of a Railgun to carry more ammunition. The two crewmen were sitting side by side and Vicky injected them with a sedative to put one asleep and a stimulant to wake the other up. It never got built.
They already have all the ideas set in place for the future now we just await to gradual implementation of them. I’m wondering what the US will be offering as their next MBT replacement.
@@isaakfaulk8067 Probably something made out of $100 bills and gold bars given the monetary black hole that is US military development.
The military industrial complex is driving NATO imperialism. I'm ashamed to say that the US and NATO are worse than Nazi Germany. We've become the world's bully.
talk about a fun tank! sign me up!
IIRC that was the April issue. Road & Track always had an “interesting” test drive (like the NASA crawler) and Hot Rod magazine had some amazing new part or tool.
The T14's engine is also supposedly a modified German SGP Sla 16. A WW2 experimental engine that was tested in a Jagdtiger B.
source: trust me bro
@@viswajitbala7924 You don't need a source, the engines of both tanks are public knowledge. Look them up for yourself if you're curious, you'll see the similarities.
Obviously the Russians thought they could make their design more reliable. And then an Armata broke down on red square during a parade lol. That was years ago... still no Armata in active service.
The SGP Sla 16 was supposed to replace the Maybach HL230 V-12 used in Tiger I & II but never went to production as the war ended before it finished its testing. During the testing it was installed in a Jagdtiger and it showed a promising results, there was initially a problem with heating as the engine was air cooled but was sorted out with adjustment to the cooling fan. I don't know where you got the idea it was "notorious for breaking down" from!
@Mofleh Alrofidah sorry that was my mistake. You are right, the speculation was that of the engine installed in a jagdtiger and not a porsche tiger. I have changed my comment to more accurately portray it.
@Viswajit Bala there are articles, it is not officially confirmed that is why I said "supposedly"
1. The crew being separated from the turret doesn’t make the tank more lethal. It protects the crew from a catastrophic ammo detonation. (Historically an issue with Russian tanks)
2. The auto loader debate has gone on for years. Having worked with autoloaders, nothing sucks more than having it malfunction right when you need it. (I’ll take the extra man.)
3. The Americans deviated from an unmanned turrets on main battle tanks for a reason.
a. The technology didn’t exist at the time to make it cost effective, and the amount of electric power required to operate the fire control is so high that the vehicle would have to never stop running in order to generate the necessary charge.
b. Situational awareness is key in modern combat. Cameras are cool and all, but nothing beats the ability to stick your head out of the hatch and take a look around without having your head knocked off by a main gun.
The Russian equivalent of "Hooah" is "Ura" (ура) pronounced as one syllable.
"Tovarishch" (товарищ) means "comrade" and was originally an informal term of address before the revolution, kinda like "buddy" or "pal," but quickly became formal as the USSR slowly solidified its institutions. Now it is seen as outdated, almost like how we would regard slang from the 50's and 60's.
yeah, thats actually shows how author deep in the topic... trash channel honestly meh
He said it as a joke about how the Russians must be nervous with the new tank design, the actual term in the US is Hoorah thus hooah symbolizes nervousness.
@@pupsen_110kg what’s your qualification? Unless you have videos talking about your experience as a tanker then your comment has no value.
@@DanielAkinkajou its like tasting food in restaurant. Do you need to be a qualified professional chef in order to critique someone? That thing you do is logic fallacy moemnt there. Let alone critique, even a comment isnt allowed eh? What are you? Gestapo?
Considering youre a troller with that name. I expect no intelligence coming from you.
Hurrra !!!!
This is correctly :)))
The tank response to drones and guided AT munitions is the APS and computer controlled AA MG (or even a fuse detonated frag from the 125mm). Armata having even a small radar combined with automatic fire control systems makes countering drones far more feasible. The Armata isn't so much about having tanks on the ground now but having a chassis that has the capability to house 50 years of upgrades capable of adapting to threats that 1980s chassis can't because they lack the automation to react to current and future threats fast and accurately enough.
This is a great summary of the facts . Even if they don’t go into full rate production with the Armata for 10 years from now it’ll still be future proofed for upgrades. Unless drones force tank warfare to go to much smaller cheaper automated mini tanks ….
@@Taskandpurpose 152mm will never be used in T14 Armata. Well, as long as we live. It was tested and it did well on purpose build strengthened prototype but failed twice when tossed on the regular T14. Redesigning would be too expensive. There was no "T14 made with 152mm gun in mind as a future upgrade". It was designed the way, in the future, it would be possible to purpose design the turret. There was the prototype CAPABLE of shooting reliably 152mm but it was absurdly expensive. T14 was the lighter brother of it. The 125mm is a decent gun, but 1000mm RHA penetration at 1500m claimed is beyond what this can do. I don't know if it's 850mm 900mm. I know it is impossible to stretch the T-90S gun's already immensely stretched capabilities. The initial tests of this canon were blowing the gun breach. To these capabilities, Russian propaganda added their own little something-something. On top of all this + 20 - 25% of the muzzle energy, and from this number, the penetration was calculated. Which, of course, does not transfer with a 1 to 1 ratio.
In 2015 I said on all Russian and worldwide forums: "It's 100% not ready!" - what else can I say? I was talking about was the X layout engine. It had more problems one could count. The powerpack is placed in such a way, it can not be placed any other way. I mean with this design. Yet, the design can not be changed because it makes it impossible to obtain this compact and lightweight setup. It has to be only this.
The APS hard-kill type was not yet ready. It takes more money and time to test and make the settings right it could work reliably than designing and building the whole system.
The *VERY* long-range shooting with this AI-supported "rough" aiming system. Yeah, this was in its infancy in 2015.
The issue in the official announcement at the parade was not a handbrake. The transmission was jammed.
Making T14 canon work on T-90S was a flat-out lie.
You cant counter Drones with that MG unless it has a guiding infrared radar, which it surely doesn't have unless they didn't give a shit about the visibility of the tank on the field...
@@VeXu666 The MG is controlled by a computer connected to the afghanit radar which is already on and IR/Optical sensors and aimed and fired by the computer automatically. It doesn't need human aiming or reaction times, it has an AI. Just designation of a pre-tracked target and a request for permission to fire to avoid the AI shooting friendlies. Sufficient for a quad copter or catapult launched drone.
@@HanSolo__ why do you think the transmission was jammed?
As a tanker I can say I want the manual loader because that extra person is extremely useful while in the field.
I fully agree (I'm not a tanker but a trained army officer).
Autoloaders can be a genuine improvement - for example the one that come with the PzH2000 artillery system. Obviously, the kind of firing solutions that system offers cannot be dependent on a human reloading manually. Still, the system does still have a soldier as loader who maintains the stockpile. Plus, the PzH2000 can still fire shells even if the autoloader breaks down.
More importantly though is that operating "in the field" requieres many more tasks than just the narrow, weapon system specific tasks - guard duties, camoflaging, maintainence, etc., etc..
I wonder if that was part of Rheinmetal's thinking with the new tank they're working on. They included a 4th crew position despite having an autoloader. This is kind of controversial among armchair tankers and theorists, citing the space the 4th crewman tkaes up would be better served storing more ammo or equipment. But I can see how an extra guy would be useful.
@@keithharper32 Thing is, once you stop at night or late in the afternoon for the bivouac, the tank commander leaves for the briefing. That leaves the other 3 to do the rest of the work. The loader will usually man the machine gun and the radio, for security, leaving the gunner and the loader to do the camouflage, the track maintenance, setup the sleeping spots, prepare food, and do all sorts of other tasks. If you only have 3 crew on a tank most of those tasks in the field will become extremely difficult or outright impossible to do. You simply can not put camouflage netting over a tank in the field by yourself. Also when you are on exercise the tank has this nasty habit of throwing it's track in the middle of the night in knee deep mud while it's raining. You will then need to break the track and put it back on, which with a full crew of 4 is already a very hard and time consuming thing to do. Again usually the loader or the tank commander will man the machine gun and radio leaving the other 3 to do the work. If you have to do that with 2 men it is basically impossible to do. If you never served on a tank, you have no idea how much work and maintenance you need to do to keep the thing going.
@@keithharper32 I believe the 4th position on the KF51 Panther is optional and is for the version that comes with a Hero loitering munition launcher so they have a dedicated pilot on board.
Minus : the smell of the loader sweat, ammunition gets heavier in the future (needs auto loader)
the russians thought they were going to replace their T-90s with T-14s but instead they replace their T-14s with T-55s
Sounds too innovative to me. One new system is usually buggy, ten of them together is usually unusable.
It's really not, its a combination of systems which have been proven on newer western and Russian tanks. The overall design is foreward-thinking but the technology isn't anything special. It's a great design, but it seems they don't have the money to build it in relevant numbers yet. This is ironic because they lost far more money's worth of equipment in Ukraine than they saved by not upgrading their vehicles.
That was the Edsel's problem: too many innovations on a single vehicle. You could even make a case for that being the main problem with the F-111 too.
it does have lots of electronic but such designs were envisioned 40 even 50 years ago just never fully designed.
I have a few doubts about the Russians being able to make all that automation work and more importantly, keep working.
Not only that, I don't think they can afford to maintain all the advanced systems.
I would not underestimate russian automation. They already did pretty crazy advanced things with their subs many decades ago and I'd be surprised if all that progress was just lost instead of improved.
@@benbaselet2026 That was the Soviet Union. As the current war in Ukraine shows the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation are two very different things.
@@ddandymann Ideologically they seem to be exactly the same, but technologically not (although they are trying to bring bad the bad old days for their civilians).
@@benbaselet2026 We need to reevaluate everything we thought about Russian military technology. Half of it appears to be science fiction while the other half is half-assed.
Thanks for your work mister Capy. Very interesting, very fresh and funny way of delivering info.
Russia is now sending all their new T14 Armata tanks back to their factories to be modified. They are going to incorporate some design changes that reflect lessons learned in the Special Military Operation.
The tanks gear box needs replacing so that they have one super low forward gear and five reverse gears. The tanks bustle also needs to be enlarged in order to be able to carry a typical sized washing machine
Ahahahah
You forgot the auto cigaret loader.
30+ years ago I bought a book by Brig Simpkin of the British Army. He advocated something very similar to this for future tanks: engine in front for added crew protection; crew capsule in the hull; and the mission pod in the rear. The pod could be a remote turret for a tank, or a troop transport compartment for a heavy IFV, or an artillery piece for a SPG, etc. The Merkava and Armata come close to what he was advocating. Pros and cons to everything...if the tech get damaged or fails then having the crew in the hull means no manual backup to keep the tank in the fight, and that is bad. Only three crew means no backup if someone is hurt or ill or called away for other duties.
Some of you have to remember that tanks fight as part of a team with infantry, artillery, engineers, air, etc. ATGMs are great but you can't launch them if you're getting artillery airburst all over your position. Tanks in one form or another will always exist...a protected vehicle that can shoot, move and communicate.
engine wont provide all that good protection and well... engine goes off tank is immobile and cant retreat. also it will glow like christmas tree on infra red. so not good idea.
@@jebise1126 You are right. With the development of advanced composite armor, the advantage of putting the engine in the front is completely negligible. Israelis stick with frontal engine because their tank industry & tank crews are accustomed to such design. Change back to normal tank design that everyone else uses will cost a lot of time and money to change their doctrine, training, tactics and hull manufacturing etc.
Climb to glory! Tipple Deuce vet here
This is what I'm always saying. You can't fire that MANPAD or RPG if you're under suppressive MG fire and sniper cover from infantry. Tanks don't operate in a vacuum despite what video games would lead everyone to believe. Battlefield has about the best tank combat in that regard. Being the ground support for a tank in BF4 is my favorite role in any game.
@@jebise1126 The powertrain does, in fact, provide protection to the crew if it is in front. Any large metal objects you can put between the soft squishy crew and projectiles trying to kill them is a good thing. Many IFVs and the Merkava and the S tank have their engines in front. The idea is to protect the crew, who take months or even years to train properly. You can always fix or produce another tank relatively quickly. As far as IR signature goes, as soon as you fire the main gun, you are no longer worried about the IR signature of your engine, which is behind armor anyway. Your engine exhaust can be mixed with fresh air to reduce its heat signature as well.
The truth? The truth is, they were supposed to have 2500 of them. As of now, there is confirmed number of like 20...? And all I found online was the six t-14 you keep seeing on Moscow parades.
And even then one of em broke down... on parade... in ideal condition... on a road. Yeah.. this is just a propaganda tank
@@riptors9777 Exactly. Even if it was user error with the driver putting on the hand brake, that T-14 on the parade still caught fire because of it. Because of a user error that was apparently so easy to make that a parade driver accidentally did it in ideal, calm conditions after having rehearsing the exact actions he had to do. The fuck do they expect will happen when they make conscripts drive it into combat and inevitably start doing panicked soldier things with the controls?
Yep, probably 20 plastic models of it for propaganda reasons :)))
@@riptors9777 You are right as never before. If it could fight, it would be in Ukraine like a black eagle tank. It is already gone.
there are 6 prototypes, zero are actually deployed.
Sounds like an awesome tank! But where is it? Something is certainly wrong here. It’s no good if you can’t make it. I suspect there are a lot of great systems but very few of them consistently work as planned making it very unreliable. Let’s hope they don’t figure it out soon.
Finally a comment that is neutral, no red or blue team just talking about a tank.
UVZ has now stopped ALL production of any tank because they lack parts. Luckily, it is not the only tank factory in Russia. Oh wait. It is.
I've always followed the principle for every automatic system you need a manual backup in case it fails or to supplement it.
well, that sounds nice and all, but is outdated by now
@@quantuman100 ??? That's not outdated at all. If the automated loader/turret fail this tank is just a roaming trouble. To much automation without manual backup is a death trap. Especially with how shit Russian equipment is proving to be in Ukraine.
@@Wallyworld30 yes, let's look at the Russian stuff in Ukraine, most of it is the old "manual backup" equipment, not really anything more modern than the 2000s to be seen, so much for the manual backup being usefull
@@quantuman100 you know that the tanks being used in Ukraine all have autoloaders, they started using them in the T-64, it isn’t a brand new concept
@@rexnifty8678 yes, but these auto loaders could still be manually operated from inside the turret, hence why they have a reputation for taking off the loaders arms
Don't get me wrong, I honestly think the T-14 Armata is an outstanding vehicle but like with any armored tank - it has room for improvement. The Abrams is in bad need of some of the new features that the Armata has. Hopefully people see that my jokes are meant in good fun and I mean no harm. See you all next week : D
Oh hi Cappy how you doing
Like what?
Russophobia.
The Abrams definitely needs a remote controlled crewless turret with a autoloader.
@@Venator631 i rather make a new tank instead of doing some dumb shit like that
As of 6/23/2022 Russia has produced about 20 T-14s, most, if not all are prototypes. This program, like the SU-57 follow the example of the "Potemkin Village".
Allegedly they have 40 fully operational T-14s for use. (allegedly is the key word)
i really like how you did this video, i love the fact that you have no biasies
Two days from now, these tanks will be used for the only real purpose for which they were ever created.
The Victory Day parade in Moscow.
They ordered 2000 of them. They got 20 Tanks and 3 super Yachts.
In the Victory Parade, with tow trucks.
And freed some land in Gelenzheek.
@@jounisuninen they will borrow some Ukrainian farm tractors to pull them around
20 Stück. Das ist auch meine Information!
@@jounisuninen "In the Victory Parade, with tow trucks." ...Unfortunately the tow truck was also subpar quality. hahahahaha!
Having a great design concept is one thing. Having an intergrated production or manufacturing platform as part of the whole project shouldn't be another thing.
Manufacturing it isn't a problem they have the factory lines. Its more of the deteriorating oil prices. Without high gas and oil prices Russia cant progress.
like in the 1970s oil and gas were high and Russia had a economic boom blasting into 2nd strongest economy. in 2008 and 2014 Gas and Oil were high and they took land and started new projects such as the T-14.
Start with purpose. What's it for? Then design, proof of concept, funding, building the factory, prototype, initial testing, low rate initial production, quality control, spare parts, full production, delivery, training, and a battle philosophy. Then when there's a war you need transport, logistics, fuel, ammo, a maintenance schedule, deployed spare parts, repair facilities, etc. Skip any one of these steps, and you're asking for catastrophe.
War is ridiculously expensive, but especially when you use high tech weapons platforms. Russia should use rocks and spears.
@@winterinvicta
I hope you believe that garbage at least; it would be sad if nobody did.
By 1971 Russian-occupied states were doing barter deals because their economy had died and they could only seize goods at gunpoint and barter them with countries that had an actual economy.
It's worth it to study how the socialist / Russian economy worked. People who enjoy absurd humour will have a blast. Cube-shaped 'nails' for carpentry because the quotum is in kilograms. 5 hour waiting queues to get basic goods. Stealing lightbulbs from your factory because consumers can't buy any, since there are so few....
Then having field tactics to actually make them effective is the 21st level that Russia will probably never achieve.
Here is T-14 training with mobilised troops in Kazan last month czcams.com/users/shortsk68HVxZ2API
I personally think the autoloader causes more problems than it solves. Russia loves it's autoloaders for tanks, but there's a reason most other tank designers don't use them.
Funny how the most modern tanks such as K2, Leclerc, Type-10 and prototype tanks such as Kf-51 and AbramsX all have autoloaders.
@@definitelyfrank9341 yup but those dont tend to rip off the arms of the gunner
@@adrian4596 Zero evidence to back up your claim. Typical made-up bullshit from pro-Ukrainian.
One major issue with autoloaders is seen in previous tanks such as the T-90 and 80. Since they have the circular system so that is can load it is very likely to get hit when taking fire, causing an ammo explosion. Even if this doesn’t kill the crew since they are in a separate compartment the tank is more than disabled.
This is why the American made Javelin has been so effective against Russian tanks in the fight for Ukraine. The missiles it uses just goes straight up and then back down on the turret, and there goes the rounds in the auto loader, especially with the Javelin's clever design of using tandem charges to first trigger ERA so that the other charge penetrates armor.
@@azurblueknights The T-14 has an automatic defence system that is very capable of rendering NLAWS and JAVs useless as well as attacks from directly above. There are videos of it in use if you care enough about tanks but you dont seem to as you;d already know this. It's common knowledge since 2016, its why US sweat so hard over the T-14.
при попадании в отсек хранения снарядов танка абрамс, от также выводится из строя.
@@azurblueknights эффективность джавелинов на Украине сильно преувеличена. Т72Б лучше защищен в верхней проекции, чем абрамс, хотя конечно не достаточно. Это вечная борьба за вес заставляет конструкторов уменьшать бронирование сверху. Но компактные размеры Т72, позволяют сделать бронирование сверху лучше. Т14 в этом отношении еще лучше, т.к. башня не обитаема и при её подрыве никакого вреда экипажу не наносит.
Sure if the additonal defense measure on it does not work. Also if they bribed the right persons even russia would know how challenger 2 can take up multiple anti tank missiles and live. With just that it would beat abrams..
Not even abrams is as tanky as challenger 2 vs anti tank
It looks like an interesting super modern vehicle. It’s just that Russian armoured doctrine from WW2 through the Cold War involved overwhelming the enemy or potential enemy with huge numbers of simply designed vehicles. The Armata is 180 degrees from that doctrine. It also comes at a time when the sophistication and number of hand held anti armour weapons are making the viability of the MBT concept open to question.
So your saying mechs are possible?
@@thelonelypilot Mechs that can operate in infantry roles sure, but mechs bigger than that? No.
The Handheld AT's are also a threat for mechs. Actually especially for mechs, a mech is way too vulnerable for that. Too many moving parts and weak points.
@@ls200076 especially the joints
What hand held anti armour weapon is capable of defeating modern top of the line MBTs frontally? Especially MBTs with latest active protection? If anything, it seems that hand held anti-armour weapons will go the way of the dodo.
@@phunkracy Oh, I agree. ATGMs are good, the missile rules the roost right now and is only getting better, but that doesn't mean tanks are finished.
01:08
Imagine looking out of your window, just to see a guy with a helmet and a M4 talking to camera in his hand in the other house. 🤣
@my neighbors
Cappy's neighbors are probably used to it by now...
This all sound great on paper. Good thing it also sounds like it's going to stay on paper.
I’m sure that all 19 T-14s built would be excellent targets for Javelins and NLAWS.
The B29 had four unmanned remotely operated turrets.
The Rheinmetal 120mm has been able to finish the targeting solution since the 1970's when it was a 105mm. This technology was introduced in the AH56 Cheyenne based off the technology _from_ the B29's radar remote targeting stations.
The B-29 also had a Sperry analog computer used to direct fire, coupled to the aircraft's on-board radar. Analysis of combat footage over Europe from B-17s, B-24s, and B-25s, which were designed for much slower top speeds (about 260 mph), against early 1940s-vintage fighter aircraft (some could very shortly get over 400 mph, but doing so severely hampered their "loiter" time) indicated that waist, top, and belly gunners seldom, if ever, hit any enemy aircraft, due to the vagaries of the approach vectors and relative velocities involved. The rear gunner had the best chance of hitting an approaching fighter at all; followed by forward gunners (in the B-17G onwards) taking on a "head-on" attack. Typically only these two positions contributed any meaningful defense to the aircraft, the others were useful mainly for complementary cover to the other planes in formation.
The B-29 intended to solve these issues by having the analog computer devise a shooting solution when the aircraft's radar picked up enemy targets; it could direct those remote-control turrets quicker and with better accuracy than a human gunner was capable of. Since that plane wasn't used in any numbers over Europe, and by the time it really got into action in significant enough numbers over Japan in early 1945, the Japanese fighter defense was virtually nonexistent, due to lack of, mainly, fuel and trained pilots. Most of what aircraft they did have were obsolete by 1945 standards and what few did sortie were easily picked off by American CAP, either P-38 Lightnings or P-51 Mustangs. In fact, the CO of the XX Air Force, Curtis "Bombs Away" Le May, realizing that the B-29 gunners were effectively out of a job, had all but the tail guns, ammo, and crew removed on some of them operating out of Tinian island, and sent them on low-level night raids against Japanese cities, dropping incendiaries with horrific effect. The air raid of greatest destruction was against Tokyo, with 328 of these B-29s, thus modified, and the destruction burned out almost 20 square miles of Japan's capital and killed an estimate 125K people...more died that night than in the first 24 hours after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined.
However, the heydey of the B-29 would be short-lived. Not only was it slated for replacement by first the B-36 "Peacemaker" and later the B-52 "BUFF", it was, in spite of its size IAW WWII standards, designated a "medium" bomber when the Air Force came into being as a separate service. Over Korea, at first the B-29s helped to destroy the DPRK's ability to carry on the war, and fighter cover (F-51s, F-82 "Twin" Mustangs, and P-80 jets) dealt with the WWII-vintage MiG and Lavochkin piston-engined fighters flowed by the North Koreans. But in November, 1950, the first MiG-15 jet fighters made their appearance, and could virtually ignore the USAF fighter cover and wreaked havoc on the B-29s in daylight. These jets were, of course, flown by Soviet V-VS pilots, under command of WWII Soviet Ace Ivan Kozehdub, who also, against orders, flew a few missions himself and claimed to have shot down two USAF P-80s and an F-86! It got so bad that after a particular debacle, known in USAF annals as "Black Tuesday", where, on a daylight raid on October 30, 1951, six of nine B-29s of a particular raid against an airfield at Namsi, Korea, were lost. The USAF would never send B-29s on a daylight raid again.
I'll take one of our M1's with an experienced crew above any other tank in the world.
5:22 Gotta disagree here , neither Russia or USA came with the idea first , both had secret plans of developing a non-manned turret tank , USSR had a project tank called T-74 (Object 450) developed in 1971 but since at that time electronis were not that much advanced it was cancelled so im guessing T-14 main insipration was T-74 not TTB.
The first question should have been are the brakes on , did transmission lock up, or was that due to an axel seizure?
Love your videos my man. Great production values and I love your style of humor. The little rants where you get cut off always makes me laugh. Even just the little things like the graphics, internal workings of the weapons being explained, and the chill bg music. You also do a ton of research and make it easily accessible. Keep up the great work!
The Abrams does not have 50 times zoom, it has 50 times digital zoom, increasing those pixels does not give you a better picture. Fairly confident any computerized fire control system can zoom in on pixels not just the abrams.
Yeah digital zoom is nothing special. And as you say, you can't create detail out of something that isn't there. The real world isn't CSI where you can just infinitely enhance and magically get details you wouldn't otherwise get.
@@TehIdiotOne Enhance four pixels into an image sharp enough to figure out what brand of watch the perp was wearing XD
No bro this ain't ur average software it's alot better and it ain't entitled digital if it was then you wouldn't have a camera
@@yeetyskeet5548 That's not how optics work.
@@yeetyskeet5548 That's not how optics work.
Aah... won't the turret of the T-14 also go pop like those of T-90s and T-72s?
17:25 imagine all the lives you put in danger because the turret is smaller to hit and IS PROTECTED BY ITS APS.
I mean, Russians are now in an all-out war and we haven't seen a single one of these bois on the battlefield, even in their most elite 1st Guard Tank Army.
As lazerpig pointed out it might be becuase whilst yes, on paper it is an excellent vehicle, they can probably barely afford to run them
true, russia seems to do this with its B team. Mainly because of the chance NATO wants to join the fight, they want to keep their best ready for that and not for ukranian army.
@@bartdekkers8227 Except the 1st Guards Tank Army ain't no B team, it's the elite of Russia's tank force. If anyone had fully operational T-14s, it would likely be them.
@@user-sm5sj6mg2t They dont need them, why waste them
@@user-sm5sj6mg2t There are no fully operational T-14's, the vehicle still hasn't entered serial production and all those that do exist are prototypes that are only good for testing and propaganda footage. Also even if they were operational I doubt Putin would risk them given how the war is going. If the Ukrainian farmers can nab one with their tractors they'll send it to the Americans who will be able to analyse every flaw and weak point on the tank.
At one timeI was a driver-mechanic on a 2S3 self-propelled gun, "Carnation", served in East Germany. At the same time, he studied driving the main Soviet tanks of the 80s T64 and T72. The 2S3 self-propelled guns had such a terrible manual gearbox that to switch from second to third gear, you had to get off the seat and help yourself with your shoulder, and it was almost a new self-propelled gun. In T14, the gearbox is automatic, has 8 forward speeds and 8 reverse speeds, for Russian technology this is a big breakthrough. Instead of control levers - a joystick, a gunner and a commander sitting next to the mechvod, who can communicate verbally and help each other - are worth a lot.
1st russian tank with reverse gear?
@@toastplayz_9726 Child, play with toys and don't think about reverse gear, it's too early for you.
@@vladimirnikolskiy I was making a joke about how russian/soviet tanks don't have a reverse gear, it's a joke in the war thunder community
@@toastplayz_9726 Haven't played in a while, didn't get your joke. All the best!
You forgot to mention it can take off and land vertically.
Seriously !!! At frame 1:11 you actually pulled the drapes asise and stood in front of the open window. You were in the Catering Corps right ? Seriously I love your work 👍🍺
"I'm not biased to one tank or another, they're all equally terrifying to me and my small arms fire"
Combining an IFV chassis with a tank chassis is doable and could be a good idea if you really want maximum commonality, but not if the tank has a large cannon turret imho. You could do it with a turretless tank design like the Stridsvagn 103, plus a small remote turret at the top that is shared with the IFV platform
Poopski: T14 machine gun shoot down rpg.
Sgt York: "Show me don't tell me!" Launches a Javiline .
Poopski: HAHA
Fires 9 metres of 7.62x54R.
T14 explodes
Poopski: "NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!"
I like the reverse image at the start of this video.. the Tank CMDR is saluting with his left hand. !
Great presentation, Chris. Just a thought. Maybe what the Armata's is going through (as the intended next step in concept and design) is exactly what the T64 went through?
Armata is what the Russian military wants to have BUT may not necessarily THE only way to achieve that step.
The T64 was produced in rather small numbers (compared to other tank series), was never exported (prior to the collapse of the USSR) and became a working test platform for the development of next generation of tanks like the T80.
Yes possible, but no not the same. T64 was meant to be developed alongside the T-80. One for tech excellence, the other for ease of production ----> mass production. T14 was supposed to be a hybrid, both tech excellence & mass production.
@@vdotme not T-80, T-72
i would consider 13k units delivered a pretty big production run. that outproduced just about every western MBT series alone.
AND it was the high price, high tech, low production tank.
T72 clocks in at about 25k
And T80 as the most expensive one at about 6000
@Brendon O'Connell III okay okay, you can take your tinfoil hat off now
to be honest I was actually not very familiar with the T-64 ! I just started getting more into learning about main battle tanks, a natural curiosity out of my Infantry Fighting Vehicle fascination. But this peeked my interest I'm going to look into the T-64 and cover it fully in a future video.
The *Olympic Games* should have a spin off like the Paralympics, but for military equipment. … some of the previous games's "survivors" could even compete in the next cycles Paralympic Games.
_"And here we have the US mixed pairs airforce team consisting of a F-22 and a F-35 going up against the Russian team of a Su-57 and a Su-35, after their humbling of the Chinese Team and their much vaunted J-20"._
There are games like this held in Russia
This tank is amazing. It has never been so much as spotted on a battlefield, let alone destroyed.
uhm it hasnt been in ukrain
@@t34gaming41 they are using t90s in Ukraine bc it has the ability to eject the turret in response to anti tank missiles.
@@peterbruno657 i said there no t14 since when did i say t90s
@@t34gaming41 actually there are t14s and su 57s all over place in Ukraine but they are so stealthy they cannot be seen with naked eye
@@peterbruno657 Actually your ignorance and imagination is so endless that you even can't spot it with your naked eye
I like this guy! Very fun to watch and never offensive. Thanx man! 😄🖐️
A friend of the family who went to Russia for his company was furnishing his flat and asked a colleague (who was from Russia) what was a good washing machine to buy and duly said a type. The machine boke down almost immediately after purchase and the colleague said "Oh yes they all do, but that washing machine is easier to work on".
"Russia is never so strong or so weak as seems" Von Clausewitz
Old story new world Von Clausewitz said that Russia would fall from within.
goddamn
thats the first western assessment of us that i can cosign
Stands true to this day it seems.
So far, I've only seen footage of the T-14 this year rolling around a training range to impress the mobniks. They'll surely feel delighted when they are issued with a T-62 instead.
You hit the nail on the head about the turret.
I mean if your lucky and the turret gets hit with a depleted uranium round you've got a max 2 passengers taxi.
If you're unlucky the ammunition carousel goes bang, you execute
a spectacular turret toss, and it's game over in a 200 gallon pool of burning diesel.
😥
Don’t quote me on this but 50x on M1 is electronic and therefore not really a lot better than 12x on the Armata
you're saying its like a digitally enhanced zoom instead of anactual optical lens zoom? That might be the case I'll have to double check that
@@Taskandpurpose yeah in my memory it is but I’m not 100% sure
You're right but this isn't the early 2000's using old nikon cameras. It is a new upgrade and most likely has some sort of upscaling.
Upscaling or any form of digital zoom is still a legitimate issue. Even with current technology, it isn’t up to par with analogue lenses in terms of picture quality. You also can have issues with minute details being obscured or blended into the overall picture. This may be an issue against a target that’s well camouflaged.
@@Taskandpurpose yes the optical zoom is 13X and the Abrams can further electronically zoom 25X and 50X. However firing from that level of zoom gives a higher chance of error bc any tiny adjustment in aim will have a greater effect on trajectory
The price just went up 10 fold with the recent sanctions. What's a ruble worth these days?
Literally less than a cent in US Dollars.
Doesn't much matter if they institute a new system for financial transactions.
@@stateofopportunity1286 still will be matter if only limited country using those new financial transaction.
Rouble is currently worth two specs of dust.
What about now?
I should have done it before but at around 14:10, when you whipped out this crazy US military recruitment clip, I finally hit the subscribe button!
The 0bject 195 had the worlds first unmanned turret but it was sort of an incomplete turret because its gun was only a prop.
There is even older version of this tank without crew in tower, it is soviet Object 477 Molot (can be translated as Hammer), development started somewhere in 80s in Ukraine(which was part of ussr at that time).
Later, when first prototype was ready, it had way too many bugs and issues, so army rejected it.
Btw, this rusty prototype is still somewhere in Ukraine, in city Kharkiv
Kharkiv* ik that i will be annoying likely but Kharkov is russian spelling, in Ukrainian (and Ukraine where Kharkiv is) it is Kharkiv
@@Davyder_ привыкай к старому написанию :)
@@Andy-kl1ry ну якщо Харків візьмете то так і тому і бути, а поки-шо на горизонті тільки оборона БНР
@@Davyder_ ок, пусть пока будет так :)
ACTUALLY there is an update on the Armata you missed,
not long ago (a month or so) in the Russian side of the net several photos of post trial modification of t14 appeared, with even thicker armor on the front hull and reworked side armor panels. With news that T-14 finished it's state trials and the first batch of 20 serial version of t14 is slated to be delivered to the front lline troops by the end of 2021~early 2022
Just in time to field in urkraine.
@@zachv1942 yup. I'm afraid you're right. certain engagements will be the 'proving grounds' for technologies. Just like Georgia was where the Russians went back to the drawing table and decided to upgrade their army structure, and in particular their infantrymen. Now they are testing this out in Syria and Ukraine. They are taking notes. Maybe we should too.
They actually announced that the first batch of 20 will not be made until 2022.
This is the same 20 frequently believed to have already been delivered.
My belief is that the Russians have concluded that they can't develop the technology claimed, and certainly can't afford the development. They also realize that it is a tank with a glass jaw -- a lightly armored turret that can be knocked out with 30mm is a mission kill, even if the crew can drive it back in retreat.
@@1djbecker Also possible that they have the technology claimed, but they can't develop the means to affordably mass produce the design.
Even with if the technology works and the design is sound, if they can't build and field them, it's *still* just vapor.
Also, is the front of the turret really not even resistant to 30mm?
I'd expect even the "lightly" armored turret (by MBT standards) to be resistant at least to modern 75-105mm rounds, depending on angle of incidence.
16:54 - This reminded me of the first trials of the M247 Sergeant York anti-aircraft system that was canceled in the late '70s.
While seeking out helicopter targets, it mistook an exhaust fan on a latrine in the field as a target and shot it up!
It also took aim at a bunch of British VIPs and Congressmen in the observer stands!
Drop your weapon!!!
"One of the advantages" of a separate crew compartment "is that it makes the tank more lethal" until.
"Pvt Snuffy, I want you to climb out of the hatch and figure out why the auto loader stopped functioning!" "Yes, Comrade Sgt."
(Pvt. climbs out) bang *Zing
"Pvt Yuri, I want you to climb out and find the problem with the autoloader"!
I’m a civilian and just like being fed historical and informational stuff… you’re a hell of a teacher Mr Cappy 🤙🏼
check out "the history guy" hes a teacher and is good
The biggest advantage the Abrams has IS the crew in the turret.
The offensive capabilities with more eyes in a gun fight to help the gunner and the driver move fast to a better shooting location. Doing all that from a screen is really hard, ask all the TCs who try and navigate with the CITV.
T-14 seems more of a long range Defensive shooter.
Also tanks are high maintenance that require daily work for peak performance. Turning a four man crew into a three man crew is the equivalent of one guy just going off and letting the other three do all the work.
I will tell you why it will never get to mass production. Owner of UVZ, after receiving order for 2300 tanks bought a couple of premium class apartments and yachts.
Very pleasant and non-bias feeling analysis
Thanks!
The T-14 is lightly armored on the turret. A simple 50 cal with armor piecing round would likely be able to rip through it easy. An RPG would shred it. The tank has great armor on the front and the front half of the sides to protect the crew, but that is it. The rest is VERY light. Just look at the monster engine and the size of the tank, large gun, and more admonition... it has to cut armor. They put a cage to protect the engine. Any Tow missile will rip through that. Now it has its active defense, but it only face a front 60 degree arc. I question if it will work against bombs or missiles coming in at a steep angle. That is even if the system really works. They still put the dazzler on the tank even though that has been defeated long ago. I also seriously doubt that defense system could touch a tank round and definitely not a depleted uranium dart. It sounds like the tank is really no harder to take out, but that the crew has a far better chance of surviving. I also question their optics and targeting as well as their training.
As for the delays there were several quality issues, especially with the engine and massive cost overruns. Russia after cancelling their orders repeatedly it seems might have ordered 100 of them. With the current war though their economy is not doing so well so I doubt they will even get any.
So a simple cage over the motor? I guess it can easily be disabled by dropping a flaming bottle of vodka on it. Unless all the wiring is hardened or if the motor bay has an automatic fire extinguishing system it'll be toast in less than a minute.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ERA is only stuffed with papers saying: IOU ERA! Those mega yachts ain't cheap;]
@@vetrakr The cage only works really against older warheads like in a standard RPG. Most anti tank weapons like the TOW and Javelin now have dual warheads to counter cages and reactive armor. And if you are looking at the footage coming out of Ukraine, those cages are not working. They even started putting the cages on top to no avail.
This is probably the future of real tank development: Thinly armored turrets (albeit they should at least resist autocannon fire!) Active defense systems (Preferably ones that actually work), and a small, very thickly armored crew compartment positioned in the front where it can best counter the weight of the engine (and ideally placed to block most incoming fire from hitting the ammo rack).
All that said...I think we'll be waiting a while before we see such tank designs becoming the standard. Completely replacing a nation's armor corps is just too expensive! Especially with all the new tech you gotta stuff in them.
NLAW uses an EFP, so you need something which will stop a 2km/s slug coming straight down on the turret.
The concept of a tank with an unmanned turret and autoloader was actually pioneered by the swedes in the 50's. Granted the Strv 101 S didn't have a turret at all, but that's not important...
the concept of a tank that can be controller by one person
As far as I know the first tank with an unmanned turret was that polish prototype - PL-01, it wasn't the armata. I don't see how the concept of the unmanned turret can be applied to a turretless vehicle, so I don't think the swedish example counts.
@@cerberusrex5275 M1128, HSTV, any technical casemate, and so on
As for actual unmanned tank turrets, there was the M1 TTB back in the 80s. It was a test bed variant of the Abrams, not even a prototype, though.
czcams.com/video/C6acdYwLMaI/video.html
And it's still 'The Dream Tank' a year later.
Electronically dependant vehicles are probably better at night operations with heavy infantry support. In the day the commander would want to see the battlefield picture. Nothing beats a MK1-eye ball
The problem with an autoloader is that once it breaks it will be a pain to repair and impossible if it gets hit
Well, if think this applies to a human loader too. A pain to repair.
@@aleide2980 yes but humans are easier to replace quickly.
Hence, a fully automated tank, being expandable by construction, does not need to be repaired. A manned one does, otherwise the crew is screwed.
@@tonybrowneyed8277 yes and that is something that the t14 is not. That sort of tank could only be done with very strong supply lines and mechanics and that is something that the Russian army serverley lacks.
Does it come with fuel?
How many Russian tanks does it take to kill one Ukrainian soldier? 5.
2 get knock out by Jav.
2 out of gas.
1 is abandoned.
"Weak spot..."
"Weak spot everywhere!"
I like your narration style, and your apartment! Does your neighbours consider you a modern version of Travis from Taxi Driver?
remote control drone tanks does sound interesting
but would this make them MORE durable or less durable ?
considering you no longer have a human crew to worry about dying
but instead they are replaced with "delicate" electronics"
I think the question is "Can you really build 100k of them to stop worrying about vehicle losses?" Russian government doesn't give a shit about losing people in a battle, if it's not millions. In Russia, tank crews are cheaper than tanks; we have lots of crews and too little T14 tanks. If you build remote controlled or even self-controlled/automatic battle unit, it must be cheap (cheaper at least).
We always hear that the fourth man is good for repair and maintenance etc. But, each tank has a big logistics chain and whatever is moving the fuel ammo and spare parts around can certainly carry extra manpower to the extent it's needed.
A man less on that tank is a man less to pay, train and getting sick or hurt in battle. I don't know what the costs per year for a FTE tanker is, but say that tank lasts 30 years, it means 30 years of wages.
Thinking the other way around you get more firepower with less manpower.
@@bertv.374 I just read that's it's about $750 a month so over the course of 10 years, that money could go into one anti tank missile.
The maint issue is real. You’re often on your own or just with your Troop /platoon. Tanks are dispersed as much as possible so they don’t get smacked by arty. Plus fuel / ammo / spares / supply is very vulnerable so is done as quickly as possible.
You’ll miss the extra man…
Your comment about logistics and support proved surprisingly prescient. 🙂
the logistics train is true but in case of comparison the US has one of the most robust long range logistics trains. From personal experience that 4th man makes a difference and with the rapid (by comparison to others) logistics train help to get equipment back to battle quicker.
Just want to say, if you can't use it you lose it. The US Tank Corps is a long term training program. It's a job, whereas most military around the world are temporary rotational members. Thus you get emergency brake moments.
The Belgians learned that the hard way when they gave up their tanks. Iirc they have to go to the Netherlands for tank training now.
The tank sights came from France. There are lots of western semiconductors that are harder to order now. So the T-14 supply chain has been clogged by sanctions.
I suspect the main production problem is corruption.
Or the fact that their economy is so bad that even Romania wipes the floor with them.
This was a very well put together video, and overall, I think it makes some good points.
I think there's some important context lacking here, though. You talked about the Russian economy and its military technology without talking about the impact of sanctions, particularly the more serious set of sanctions on Russia that Congress passed with a veto proof majority in 2017. Those sanctions have made it very difficult for Russia to obtain the electronics, sensors, optics, and software it needs to make the T-14 concept work.
Second, the Nagorno-Karabakh War demonstrates that loitering munitions are the new king of the battlefield. Just a few $100,000 drones could make pretty quick work of this $9.5 million tank.
Third, what's with the weird comment about recruiting ads? Without warfighters, expensive equipment will just sit there as an easy target. We don't have a draft, like Russia, so we need to spend money on recruiting soldiers. Note that Russia, even with its draft, cannot meet its authorized manpower requirements and draft dodging is common there.
The comment about the recruiting ads is because russian ads feature russian soldiers or special ops members doing very important/dangerous jobs.
Meanwhile american recruitment ads focus on diversity or lgbt inclusion, showcasing a female soldier talking about how she wanted to make both her moms proud.
One is still trying the other has already started to play taps.
Russia is still trying to recruit soldiers, the us seems trying to recruit latte sipping non binary starbucks crowd with it's marketing.
Hello Matt! The sanctions did make it difficult for Russia to obtain electronics, sensors, and so on, but they also accelerated the technical process in Russia. Sanctions - a double-edged sword - hit on both sides. Now, thanks to the sanctions, thermal imagers are made in Russia, and not bought in France, ship and helicopter engines are made in Russia, not in Ukraine, microcontrollers and processors are also their own - "Baikal" , "Elbrus" and others. Russia has now replaced up to 60% of food imports and has become the largest exporter of grain. Of course, Russia is not the most advanced country, but it is self-sufficient. If no one on our planet wants to cooperate with Russia, she will survive, she has everything she needs for life and development, and an attack on Russia is the death of all life on Earth. Can you say the same about your country?
@@someguy3711 I mean, you say that, but the last time Russians attacked US troops in Syria, over 100 Russians died rather quickly. Whether straight or whatever, the Americans are hardly pushovers with their doctrine and technical superiority. Russian gruffness won't match US firepower, which is exactly why Russia is upgrading.
Whether that upgrade means anything is anyone's guess. Russia is rather infamous for talking up their equipment but it never actually being as great.
well... no... drones are quite new but that will not last. sure military will have to adapt on drones but sooner or later drone protection system will appear and than it will not be so easy for drones to just destroy tanks.
either will there be drones to target drones or something else...
You need a crew to do heavy maintenance. Like the track work we had to do in the feild.
Might as well have a standing Loader and forget the whole auto loading small turret idea.
Auto loaders just dont incinerate the crew, they cause a lot of injuries.
I doubt that the Russian tankers lose that many arms in the autoloader. It's one of those devices that is so obviously dangerous that crew don't get sloppy around it.
The down-side of obvious-danger-being-safe is that humans lose focus and misjudge other surrounding dangers.
A few thoughts on the un-manned turret:
Going cross country, the vast majority of cross-talk among crew members is the tank commander giving small corrections to the driver: "a little left...a lot left" etc. This is because the driver has a very poor view through his vision block. In theory this can be overcome with cameras - but they better be real good.
When moving down the road, the crew is generally looking forward. The driver looks forward, the commander and gunner generally face the gun to the front as well. So who looks behind the tank? In an M1, its the loader. You've got a set of eyes AND a machine gun you can point to the rear. I think this is very important in an urban environment.
Your 4th crewmember shit detail comment is spot on. There are infinite reasons to have somebody hop off the tank and go pick something up, etc. And in that Armata, whenever somebody hops off to go do something (maybe as simple as going to the bathroom), they'll have to position the gun 'just right' so they can get the front hatch open. That's not a great setup.
There's also overhead clearance things the loader might do - pull antenna down or fold down the wind sensor to get under trees for example. And in peacetime, put range flags on the turret.
I'm not yet sold on the crewless turret.
Tanks break all the time. Hell there was a time where every Abrams in my battalion was deadlined and couldn't drive faster than 10 mph
Well shit lol
And still beat the crap out of the Soviet supplied hardware used by Saddam.
@@domcomfermi609 Did they? Or all damage was done by bombs, rockets and artillery? At least I do not recall any serious tank battles during USA invasion in Iraq...
@@Mr_MikeB you musy be one of those armchair generals, that think only airpower is needed to invade, and no grunts on the ground, and whonis supporting that infantry?
@@domcomfermi609 And what is your rank? Btw - so you have got info about serious tank battles Iraq vs USA? Or your high military rank doesn't allow you to discuss that?
My new tank is nuclear powered with unlimited fuel range, is invisible to the human eye, weighs less than most IFVs, the turret is not only detatchable but in fact can be launched into low earth orbit and rain death from above upon the entire earth. It also has a big robot arm that will rip off the T-14's main cannon and spear it right through the crew hatch. I expect to have it produced right about the same time that the Russian army gets its shit together and becomes a threat to professional western militaries.
lmao 😂
Apparently you aren’t paying attention to current events.
So you already have it then?
@@michaelgarrow3239 how so? I see a bunch of civilians fighting off the worlds second largest military for over a week lmao, how embarrassing.
@@michaelgarrow3239 Currently I see the Russians taking more casualties in two weeks than the last 2 American wars combined, which lasted for 13 and 20 years.
which software are you using to show the tank 3d model?
Must be fun trying to touch and manipulate those screens while bouncing around.
20 Year MI vet here. I’ve spent years analyzing old Soviet and Russian claims on their equipment and weapon systems. And. It’s all crap. Time and time again when western (especially American) weapon systems went up against the Russian stuff the west always kicked ass. The Armata? Same old story. Over hyped and in any case no real world battle experience. Then, there’s hard, bottom line fact that it’s not even in production. Russia no longer even has the production or the parts to make the things. Many of the T-14s high tech components come from foreign sources which have been cut off due to the Ukrainian war bans. Hell, Russia can’t even get parts for their currently fielded tanks and other weapons. Basically the T-14 is irrelevant.
Even more, they can’t even get logistical support to the armor they did field, let alone a more technologically advanced armor.
No tank can run without gas.
Russia is a paper tiger through and through.
Out of curiosity - when did they went up against each other when operated on same level? Last time I know was Korea war? Maybe Vietnam more or less close... In all other cause it was latest West weapons vs 20-30 old Soviet weapon systems operated by poorly trained locals...
As for weapon parts Russia sources from West - can you name at least some? Also - hasnt West prohibited to sell weapons and their parts to Russia for at least 20 years or so? But Russia still keeps even exporting their weapons abroad...
@@Mr_MikeB To see the last major engagement between Soviet equipment, specifically tanks, and American Abrams M1 tank would have been the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq. To make a long story short the war was terribly one sided against the Soviet supplied Iraq. Just sticking to tanks, Iraq lost 3,300 MBTs. The USA lost 31 Abrams destroyed or damaged and NONE of those were due to combat but to accidents, friendly fire and mishaps. Not only did the M1 outrange the Soviet tanks, the Americans had far better crew training, optics and other technological superiority.
Regarding training. We are seeing this being played out in real time in the Ukrainian/Russia war. Ukraine troops have been training with the USA and other NATO countries for the last 20 years in modern combat tactics. Russia is still using brute force WWII tactics and their training sucks/
@@bartobo We are at point 1 - can you name a single major tank battle in Gulf War? If not it makes no sense to compare tanks as if they would fought each other...
As for training for Ukraine - well, according to president Zelensky Ukraine is suffering heavy losses at the moment, so I do not know why you think one training is better than other...
@@Mr_MikeB Your comment makes little sense and is close to a non sequitur. Not sure that any individual unit battles were “named” per se, but that is irrelevant because in every “battle” fought against Iraqi armored units, the Americans won every single time, with zero combat losses. Let’s hit that again, the Iraqi forces using Soviet equipment lost over 3,300 tanks and the Americans lost none, zero, zip, nada to combat. I was still in the Army with a TS clearance at the time. I would go to our SCIF on a daily basis and read SitRep and other reports as the war unfolded in near real time.
Don’t know what you mean by “Point 1”. The war has been ongoing for over four months now, the Russians have retreated from Kiev, regrouped in the east around Donbas where they are still getting their butts kicked and now they’ve given up and retreated from Snake Island.
It’s obvious that you have never served in the military and have no idea regarding the value of training in battle field tactics and maneuvers. Look, you can train a crew the basics in operating their tank in a week and the tank commander a few more days. That gets them out on the battlefield able to drive around and shoot but not how to fight. Training costs money in time, fuel, maintenance and ammunition. The old Soviets and now Russia is loath to spend money on training and keeps it to a minimum. The West, on the other hand, spends hundreds of hours in training tank crews in tactics, maneuvering and working with support troops in a integrated battle group. The Ukrainians have been training with the Americans and other NATO nations for the last twenty years in modern battle tactics and we’re seeing the results in this war. The Russians are sending in massive amounts equipment manned by poorly trained troop and using brute force attacking civilians. The Ukrainians meanwhile, are using their modern battlefield training and tactics to take the fight to the Russian military. This is why the civilized, well trained and motivated Ukrainian freedom fighters are winning against the undisciplined, demoralized, barbaric, Russian orcs.
On paper all Russian military designs look amazing but in reality once they are battle tested in true life scenarios its a different matter altogether.
Would seem you werent harsh enough on it..
It does however have FANTASTIC stealth capabilities.... so good infact that noone has seen it yet.