Radical or Ridiculous? | T-14 Armata | Tank Chats

Hi Tank Nuts - let us know your thoughts about this video in the comments below.

Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said, by so many, about so few tanks

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!

"getting any tank onto the battlefield is problematic." Getting any tank off the battlefield in working condition is near impossible.

This is an excellent channel. You guys present everything so clearly without any unnecessary bells and whistles.

Really great video, I appreciated the in-depth dive into Soviet-era tank design philosophy.

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

T-14 has highly effective stealth coating. It's never been seen on the battlefield.

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.

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.

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.

a huge problem with these unmanned turrets is simply the fact that situational awareness is highly diminished not having the commander out of the hatch when needed...i just see so many problems with this i expect to see people running over things they were not supposed to when backing up and easily getting flanked by rpg's as well as many other weapons u could not pay me to get in this thing id rather be in a version 1 abrams

Since tank museum is now covering new vehicles, maybe it might make an interesting episode on KF51 Panther?

Very interesting hearing the development history of Cold War Russian tanks. Helps a lot with understanding how the T14 came about.

making yourself dependent from countries you may potentially go to war with for parts to build your tanks is just pure genius.

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.

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.... 😮

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.

The Armata cannot go out in the rain. It's madeof cardboard, hence it stealth ability.

"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!

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).

Great piece of work as expected from The Tank Museum

I'll wait till I see one in combat before I draw any conclusions as to just how effective it is.

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.

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.

I feel like any footage of the T-14 should come with the disclaimer “Not actual game footage” 😂

7,200 Russian Armament personnel charged with fraud & embezellement ....
*And those are just the inept ones without the Cronist clout to dodge out of harm's way*
An excellent & very contemporary video from Britains Tank Museum experts - Thanks guys.

Like anything new , there are always problems to work out . After you do , it is usually a good piece of equipment .

Every product has +/- points & people are also always divided in opinions even inside the country of OEM. In the era of advanced ATGMs with top attack capability, unmanned turret & APS are indeed a good shift, but it brings down the crew closer to mines. So height of tank needs to be increased to add bottom armor. Height of Israeli Merkava is also high + its engine on front which no other tank maker agrees to do. Anyways, Abrams-X also has design similar to T-14 with no increase in height. NATO countries obviously have variety of suppliers for sub-systems & parts, compared to Russia. Kindly make videos on other latest tanks also like Leopard-2A8, KF-51 Panther, Challenger-3, Leclerc XLR, K2 Black Panther, Japanese Type-10, etc.

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.

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.

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.

i love the quality and narration on this channel, always feels like i'm watching a good documentation on tv

Professional and excellent presentation. Facts and analysis makes this a brilliant and informative video.

Changing tanks into short-throw artillery systems that sync real-time with both drones and long range artillery is probably the better option these days.
When combined with anti-air batteries it would be a hard system to overcome.

The first videos stated all systems and it was mind blowing but it was stated early on that there was little chance all systems would be implemented on the tanks.

It really doesn't matter how amazing a weapon is if you can't actually make them.

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.

A question occurred part way through this video, when talking about how many soviet vehicles were set up for fording rivers it made me wonder about the comparative composition of logistics and engineering vehicles (bridge layers, recovery, etc) in Soviet/Russian and NATO militaries. I have seen enough clips of BMPs being swamped trying to swim across a calm body of water to have serious concerns about driving metal box into water and coming out the other side.

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

Protecting against everything besides top attack munitions was a brave & bold decision, ballsy even. Stuck with the carousel loader too, interesting choice. I can see why they chosen not to deploy them to Ukraine.

01:23 Should it not be T-43 instead of T-44 ? Because the T-34 continued production instead of the T-43 beeing tested against it. The T-44 only came into beeing in 1944 as a prototype and from 1945 in production, but after the war had ended. As far as I recall.And then of course it was a radical departure from Soviet tank liniage so far.

The story goes that RU decided to reconsider fundamental concepts instead of making improved version of same old. According to some, the idea is to maybe have fully AI automated unmanned machine or maybe remotely controlled sort of armor drone. Who knows. It is very clear that introduction of drones fundamentally changed warfare.

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.

A very interesting video, thank you. Having spent three years in West Berlin and being able to see up close the T64, T72 and T80, I was always in awe at the sight of them. Today I'm more in awe of the fact these tanks are being destroyed weekly on the battlefield by little more than drone dropped hand grenades. I see in the news that Putin has deployed the T14 into the Ukraine. I look forward to them going into battle, interesting to see the outcome, either does what its supposed to do, or captured, or destroyed by whatever means (including drone dropped grenade).

It does seem that the vehicle will end up as more of a technology test-bed than a serially produced one. The companies involved rely heavily on foreign sales to pay the bills as the Russian state demands an artificially low cost per vehicle (we've seen them prioritise models for export sale over those for domestic use - this isn't likely to change inder the current regime.)

The huge disadvantage of an autoloader is the gun had to be aligned in such a way that required the barrel to elevate. That doesn't sound like that big of a deal, until you realize the gunner can only look out of a sight that points down the barrel. That means on every shot, he has to regain situational awareness. Compare this to the alternative, where a gunner shots, watches his round go to the target, and shoots again if necessary.

As always, there is a huge difference between what it supposed to do and what it actually does...

The key problem, again, is if everyone is on the take - what's left? Great vid!

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.

Great video, but being an ex Chieftain crewman from the early 1970´s we cannot really cloak ourselves in glory in Tank development either.
Sparing writing a book here let´s just say the Hump Of Junk title was very apt with the L-60 engine being unfit for service, we were lucky to get out of the tank park gates, and this at the height of the Cold War.
And look at the Abortion that AJAX has turned out to be, a 40mm cannon on a nearly 50 Ton vehicle with as many finished models as the T-14?
With a War raging in Europe, Britain should buy the proven CV90 before more billions are wasted on AJAX, it is the same company so why such a dog´s dinner of the UK vehicle?
I doubt there will be many tank on tank battles anyway with NLaw and CBU-150 Cluster Bombs around, modern tanks will be there to just hold ground and sweep out the remaining infantry?
If we want to be really honest about this, it has taken the UK almost 60 years to develop a real War Fighting Tank that is the Challenger2.
``Chieftain, the best tank in the World as long as it breaks down in a decent firing position´´
But, the 120mm Rifled Gun is still the best Tank Gun in the World.

The overall emphasis with regard to defense in tank design are two, armor and profile. Over time, the tank has developed a 'pancake' profile, but this has made it ever more vulnerable to aerial/vertical assault.

Until it is seen in action, the T-14 has all the legitimacy of the Ghana Iron Man suits.

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.

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.

I like the idea that the whole crew is protected by an "armored capsule", latest armor and defense systems but I don't like the idea that it's all working on high tech electronics and unmanned turret. What if the tank system gets disabled by heavy explosion such as mine or rocket?

This is stunning. Would you say an F-150 or an F-250? = necessary to tow the wreckage away? Autotrader's getting prep-crazy these days

Good vidéo, but one important correction the engine on Armata has nothing to do with german wartime Porsche SLA, it is an evolution of Soviet designs from 1970th, it was never ment to power oil rigs, and there is no information on it's reliability, except that it passed state trials.

Off topic, but I watched a WW11 doco Russia verse Germany__ the tiger tanks report the 30mm cannon from the IL planes (apparently the Russians had thousands of them) just bounced off the armor__ had this been directed at tracks ( hoping to de track them ) or a diving attack from the side or behind against the engine compartments would this have improved their kill rates? Tank killer crews focused on the engine compartment if they couldn't place mines.

Im ex army ranger and I love your tank talks

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

Whether it's radical or ridiculous doesn't really matter. What matters is that when compared to the modern Western tanks such as the South Korean K2, the US Abrams, Germany's tanks, and those from Britain, it is going to face significant challenges. It's important to note that superiority isn't solely based on individual tank capabilities, as the effectiveness largely depends on the skilled implementation of combined arms tactics. In terms of both combined arms tactics and technology, the West has demonstrated superiority. A prime example is the impact of anti-tank supplies and HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) in Ukraine.

Stealth technology implemented is so good, that tank can only be detected in official purchase documents 😂

They are probably waiting for the war to end and then upgrade/modify the tanks based on notes taken during combat.

Thanks for this. Very interesting. Although now we know that it is integrated weapon systems that are key. The imminent collapse of the Ukrainian army shows that the Russian armed forces are now as powerful as ever, if not more so.

I would still cover it in reactive armor and wire nets.
The more protection, the better, don't you think?

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.

Imagine they start sending out t34s but there is one tank that could be a challenge the is7 it is an absolute monster

actually by soviet terminology you'd expect competent officials to view T14 as a so-called ТПП ("TPP" or Tank of Utmost Parameters) which is more like a theoretical scientific project that may set in motion other developments in adjacent fields or at most having a limited number of actual tanks built as a result.
not only is that what T14 was originally designed as, it's quite obvious to any sane human being that there's nothing else it could've ever been. i mean, keeping in mind how they tried to present it as nigh invincible tank that is somehow to be able to literally destroy/redirect incoming shells (not even some programmable projectiles), how smooth of a brain you'd be to consider it a MBT for 2015 ?
even without sanctions and in fantasy russia without corruption but with highly developed scientific institutions every such (as claimed in that presentation) tank would worth it's weight in gold just due to the sheer amount of high-end electronics and workforce involved.

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.

But they also produced their own “Jack-in-the-box” pop-off Turrets,instant fireworks!!

The concept of the « Armata » series is similar to the Ww2 E series. One thing that attract my attention is the track width. It is much less wider than their previous tanks. Also, the troublesome engine of the Armata, the weakness of the Russian economy to sustain such expensive programs and the lack of an advanced electronic component industry make a sustain production problematic. However, the modern components are here (a special vision display helmet linked to the cameras would be better than flat screens). Now, it will be a test of complexity and cost versus simplicity and ease of production. This new tank is not for a conscript army, unless they have yearly recall periods (French and Char B1!).

T-90 is such a beautiful tank

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.

Best Russian Tank,no doubt about that, but obviously to expensive for mass production.

What happened to their infantry support vehicle the "terminator"? That was supposed to have been a game changer wasnt it.

Seems to me you could call one of those oligarchs, explain who you are, and probably get an Armata for your collection, if you're willing to not ask any questions😎

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"

Hmm - no fume extractor, I mean yeah, there is no crew to poison but I can't shake the feeling that filling a space made up of delicate machinery, and sensitive electronics with hot, and most likely pretty corrosive Gases and particles is very much non Bueno on the mid to long term

Thanks for the video.
I appreciated how you placed the T-14 in a historical context (2/3 of the video).
Some thoughts:
Strange headline - for a video with little actual new information.
Beside the historical framing, I find this video to be rich in speculation but lacking in actual information about the T-14.
Given that the "rumours" of the tanks capabilities are true -what does it mean?
What is its capabilities compared to a Leopard 2, T-72, Abrahams etc (you gave some rudimentary information).
-I mean, you could probably do more than one video about various troubled and extremely expensive millitary projects (ex F-35 JSF), but that's not why I watch your channel.
Sincerely yours Christian

So, how's the British electric tank going? The one with the 35 km power lead?

You can still start the t-34 to this day and it's still formidable. That in itself is scary. Russians produce quantity.

So much Russian equipment just looks good on paper - I guess the war in Ukraine has brought this into stark relief, but many people have known it for a long time. My dad used to be in the RAF, and had a look at some of the MIGs and Sukhois from the former Eastern block countries after the collapse of the USSR, and they were junk - wiring looms that were randomly replaced because the heat from the engines at full power would burn through them, huge spikes and drops in voltage when the radar was activated - which would turn off multiple other systems. And the training for USSR pilots (and one has to guess now Russian) pilots was a joke, people in the west operating fork-lift trucks would get more tuition.

Will be interested to see the first T14 at Bovington!

Это самый адекватный канл, очень интересно. Рекомендую всем)) удачи, не сбивайтесь с верного пути!

It doesn't really matter what paper specs the thing has when presumably not a single Russian army unit actually has any T-14's. A year and a half ago the update was 'more than 40 tanks to be delivered after 2023' and with the war that started since then the T-14 is delegated to just being more of Russia's bravado with very little to show for it.

Russia is incredible at building parade floats like the Armata. But can't afford to build armies out of them.

Nice of them to put a star right where other tanks will have to aim to take out all three crewmen in one shot.

It's amazing that the Soviet-block computer technology deficit dates back to the post WW2 era, contributed to the fall of it, and it still persists.

Great video! A unique insight into the vehicle being discussed but also the current Russian battlefield situation and tank build / supply situation.

Unlike most of the replies here, I think an unmanned turret and modular design have merit (whether or not its worth the trade-offs, idk, but it's worth exploring). However, the Russians haven't proven they've created it in the field.
I'm mostly expecting drone launching platforms to be put on every tank for sitA at some point. Easy enough to just weld on to the side on existing models, easy enough to remove if it doesn't pan out.

The engine maybe powerful, but it sounds like it could be an Achilles heal, yet alone the electronics in it. With all of the sanctions, making sourcing the electronic elements difficult, an engine that may not be reliable, I can see why they are refurbishing older tanks. With the war in Ukraine and who knows how many of the tanks in use, destroyed, obviously most likely with the total loss of the crews.

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.

Unmanned turret is a great idea tbh.

Russian tank development is never ending story of trying to be as small as possible, which brings advantages, but also issues. For example the reason why Russians are not upgrading older tanks to later guns as Western armies do, is simple they can't. Their turrets are always designed to be as small as possible, means no bigger gun can fit and that goes all the way to WWII. When T-34 needed a bigger gun, they had to use a new turret planned originally for T-44, because 85mm gun wouldn't fit into the original small one. Then they wanted to upgrade to very capable 100L60 to deal with bigger German cats, not possible, won't fit. 100 mm gun appeared in a Russian tank only long time after the war, ten years later - in T-54/55. And then the new M-60 appeared on the American side, a new gun needed, same story yet again, won't fit. So we need a new turret comrade, let's put it on the good old T-55 and voila T-62 was created the same way as T-34/85 was almost twenty years ago. However, that sacrificed armor protection, gun angles and other things so new tank - T-64, all the problems mentioned in the video and so we need simpler design - T-72. From there no real upgunning for fifty years. Still using 125 mm gun, just modernized it several times while keeping it roughly the same size to fit in similar sized turrets. However, times are changing the original 125mm gun needs replacement to keep up with future opponents, but there is a problem. Yes, the turret won't allow bigger gun. So new tank was needed again, but it needs to be small, but a small tank needs small turret and we can't fit everything inside such small turret, we had already problems fitting crew as it was, not mentioning the pesky problem with the ammo protection. So let's take out the crew and leave the entire interior of the turret for the gun, hence T-14.

Another DW classic - and thank you Bovington for all this amazing content!

it’s a new concept unmanned turret all the crew in the hull that’s probably why it’s catching attention

is that really the tank in the background? It's amazingly small and a feat of engineering to fit 3 crewmembers inside of it. That alone is revolutionary. I do worry about its ability to traverse gaps larger than a shallow puddle.

The T14 has systems to repel incomming shells. Slight problem though, the sensor's are western import. So the crew will have to manually operate this system, by noticing a incomming shell at the speed of sound and then pressing the button at the exact right time 😂

It's a beast on paper, but the battlefield is where it'll be found to either be over hyped trash or a formidable piece of land warfare machinery