Tap to unmute

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

  • Опубліковано 2 жов 2023
  • In this Tank Chat, David Willey takes a detailed look at a vehicle that has garnered significant interest and controversy - The Russian T-14 Armata. David explores why this vehicle draws so much attention, and how it has taken a radical departure from previous Soviet design philosophy.
    Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
    ► Patreon: www.patreon.com/tankmuseum
    ► UAclips Membership: / @thetankmuseum
    00:00 | Intro
    00:47 | Soviet Tank History
    09:58 | Armata Family
    11:17 | T-14 Features
    15:27 | Production
    #tankmuseum #t14armata #armata #davidwilley


  • The Tank Museum
    The Tank Museum  4 місяці тому +713

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

    • Scott Battaglia
      Scott Battaglia 4 місяці тому +50

      It's ridiculous, since it's not a real production tank and why do so many people even care, especially historians, yea not surprised you don't have one, Russia has like maybe 8 total ........🤦

    • Nikolai Kostya 🇺🇦
      Nikolai Kostya 🇺🇦 4 місяці тому +21

      How about radically ridiculous? 😁

    • WindHaze10
      WindHaze10 4 місяці тому +12

      Thinly armored turret is a massive mistake, enabling any IFV to achieve a mission kill against it. So far IFV could reastically (disregarding surprise flanking shots) defeat a MBT is with ATGM but not you just need to hit the turret enough times. Firepower wise it is definite world beater because that is simple tech that russia has. Problems arise with quality of electronics.

    • Scott Battaglia
      Scott Battaglia 4 місяці тому +26

      @D Train show me 15 in a picture at once .....I think they only have 8. This is the same country who repainted markings on nuclear weapons during may day parade........lol if you don't see it, they don't have it. 😁

  • Sammy Martin
    Sammy Martin 4 місяці тому +1844

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

    • CaptainBean
      CaptainBean 4 місяці тому +18


    • orbitalair
      orbitalair 4 місяці тому +94

      Maus ? e100? Sgt York? Divad?

    • J6g4f8h3 78
      J6g4f8h3 78 4 місяці тому +88

      More has probably been written about Tiger tanks than all other tanks combined.

    • Jon A. Scholt
      Jon A. Scholt 4 місяці тому +110

      @TTTT-oc4eb original poster said about "so few tanks". There weren't a ton of Tigers or King Tigers, but at least those saw combat on multiple fronts and were made in the hundreds. There are, what, maybe a dozen T-14? And they're all just test beds/prototypes.
      I agree that there is too much written on the Tiger and King Tiger, but at least there is a track record there.

  • Durandal Rampant
    Durandal Rampant 3 місяці тому +205

    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!

    • Bubblezov Love
      Bubblezov Love Місяць тому +1

      That tends to be a speech pattern for me because when I have something to say, there's detail and its something I've really thought about. This confuses and confounds exactly the right people that are pointless spoken to about anything complex anyway... Not intentionally, I'm happy speaking to almost anyone. But it let's me know who can handle/be arsed with what in any given attempt at conversation.... ;)

    • Geese Howard
      Geese Howard Місяць тому +2

      much like the T-14 except for the diving in part.

    • Timo van Galen
      Timo van Galen Місяць тому +1

      Me too. I'm addicted to context.

    • R K
      R K Місяць тому +1

      This museum has a staff rated 5 stars

    • the blue penguin
      the blue penguin 24 дні тому +1

      Sooo agreed! There are so many military history/militaria channels that have good looking titles and even pre-ambles, but are 100% auto translator repetitive fluff that barely scratches the surface of the topic in question.
      So when finding a really good channel, videos that remind me of university or conference lectures, I just soak it in, and the more loosely associated but still relevant in some way the better, haha. Gimme as much background as ya have tank museum!!

  • Paul Varn
    Paul Varn 4 місяці тому +321

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

    • Rusian34
      Rusian34 3 місяці тому +7

      На каждое действие есть противодействие! Ньютон.

    • Nikolay Tinick
      Nikolay Tinick 3 місяці тому +2

      Походу уже реально, вывести с поля боя заведëный исправный танк

    • Tom Rabe
      Tom Rabe 3 місяці тому +15

      This applies primarily to Leos and all American Excavators.

    • James Kenyon
      James Kenyon 3 місяці тому +3

      Spoken by someone who has never been on a tank in their life. Stick to video games.

    • HippityhoppityGetoutOfmyProperty
      HippityhoppityGetoutOfmyProperty 2 місяці тому

      ​@Tom Rabeand also the tanks the T-90 of Russia, T-72 of Russia anf probably soon T-30 of Russia?

  • Timo van Galen
    Timo van Galen Місяць тому +63

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

    • Dollymix
      Dollymix Місяць тому +2

      Apart from the fact that they literally hate Russia and are particularly biased against Russian tanks for no good reason.

    • gp-network
      gp-network Місяць тому +4

      @Dollymix .... They hate bad tanks in general... not just russian tanks... but for the most parts, russian tanks are bad overall.

    • RUBENSKi!
      RUBENSKi! Місяць тому +2

      @Dollymixah yes you can see the hate so clearly, oh wait no they are facts. Maybe take a moment to think for a bit. If all this video says is lies, why no T-14 on the battlefield? Russia’s most modern tank is not adequate, as each week they atleast lose 2 to standard types of treaths. So if T-14 was a much better tank it would be useful wouldn’t it?

  • Paul Eccles
    Paul Eccles 4 місяці тому +179

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

  • Andy Philpotts
    Andy Philpotts 2 місяці тому +34

    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

  • Biddy Boy
    Biddy Boy 4 місяці тому +6578

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

    • S C
      S C 4 місяці тому +219

      T-14 is the most expensive ricer tank of all time.

    • Yui.
      Yui. 4 місяці тому +68


    • Chirag Sanghvi
      Chirag Sanghvi 4 місяці тому +45


    • TGamer_Bio
      TGamer_Bio 4 місяці тому +31

      Evidence!?!? 😂😂😂

    • DataC0llect0r
      DataC0llect0r 4 місяці тому +20


  • John Lubbers
    John Lubbers Місяць тому +2

    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.

  • SteamCrane
    SteamCrane 4 місяці тому +38

    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.

    • Appletank8
      Appletank8 4 місяці тому +12

      I've heard theories of using the F-35's camera system + a headset to allow operators to virtually see out of a vehicle without needing vision blocks or looking outside.

    • SteamCrane
      SteamCrane 4 місяці тому +2

      @Appletank8 That's what I had in mind. I've heard the term "glass floor".

    • Bora Horza Gobuchul
      Bora Horza Gobuchul 4 місяці тому +4

      ​@SteamCrane that would come in handy, though it's not a thing even in western tanks, though it would increase SA greatly. And one can be certain when it is released, it will be in a US tank, not a Russian one

    • SteamCrane
      SteamCrane 4 місяці тому +2

      @Bora Horza Gobuchul With both Russia and China, we are seeing the results of Central Planning, which substitutes some corrupt official's limited knowledge of what is needed for peoples' individual decisions. If there had been freedom, both countries might have gotten serious about microelectronics, along with many other needed technologies.

    • Based Man
      Based Man 2 місяці тому +2

      Or simply add a digital indicator to the HUD or screen which shows you the turrets relative direction to the hull.
      Commonly done in videogames, but it does help you visualize where are you going, what position the turret is, and what are you looking at on a quick glance.

  • Zombie
    Zombie Місяць тому +9

    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.

    • darthbuzz
      darthbuzz 3 години тому

      I no understand.
      You no speaky Engrish.

  • Broken Dishes
    Broken Dishes Місяць тому +1

    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

  • Mark Feris
    Mark Feris 27 днів тому +5

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

  • Lovelacebeer
    Lovelacebeer 4 місяці тому +327

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

    • Shawn Miller
      Shawn Miller 4 місяці тому +8

      Agreed, it was a great primer

    • Simon Gills
      Simon Gills 4 місяці тому +8

      You mean, didn't come about.

    • Jedediah Galloway
      Jedediah Galloway 4 місяці тому +12

      Lazerpig does a great breakdown or rather rips apart the T14... its a great watch.

    • William zk
      William zk 4 місяці тому +35

      @Jedediah Galloway Lazerpig is satirist. Unfortunatly a lot of the outrageous stuff he says is funny but not true. For instance the claim that the T-14 used a copy of the Porsche Tiger Ferdinand Engines. He does reveal genuine information but you don't know what is hyperbole or fact.

  • White Tiana
    White Tiana 4 місяці тому +577

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

    • B M
      B M 4 місяці тому +112

      Selling advanced military equipment componentry to countries you may go to war with is also genius. But then we've come to expect nothing less from the French.

    • Kvothe Arliden
      Kvothe Arliden 4 місяці тому +46

      I'm French. Don't worry the weapon we sell to our customers, are not as efficient as the real ones we have.

    • Praetorian
      Praetorian 4 місяці тому +77

      @B M The Americans were selling oil to Japan before Pearl Harbor. I refuse to believe they didn't suspect a war was gonna happen (intelligence department).

    • Peter Wilson
      Peter Wilson 4 місяці тому +7

      BOT your channel has no content.

    • Eliastion
      Eliastion 4 місяці тому +15

      It's not like it was their decision - it's not easy to establish high-tech industry, especially if your country is so corrupt that tryiing to throw money at the project just fills someone's pockets along the way instead.
      But even at much lower levels of corruption you can see serious issues Western countries have with supply lines for various necessary stuff starting either in China or in countries likely to be on the frontline if a war in South-East Asia breaks out...

  • Al-Azim Ahmed
    Al-Azim Ahmed 4 місяці тому +131

    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.

    • Reckless Rodent
      Reckless Rodent 4 місяці тому +13

      The ambushed Chally shows you the danger of relying on electronic sights and cameras alone. A few paint bombs and paint sprayers and you're now blind and panicking! A low tech solution to a high tech problem!

    • PJ Vis
      PJ Vis 4 місяці тому +3

      @Reckless Rodent I don't know how easy it is to sneak up on one with paint bombs, but if there's a way, it will be a very real problem

    • Ben
      Ben 4 місяці тому +3

      @PJ Vis drop paint with drones?

    • Timmy Teehee
      Timmy Teehee 4 місяці тому +33

      @Ben if you can drop paint then you might as well drop something that can penetrate the top armor.

    • Rickard Shen
      Rickard Shen 4 місяці тому +6

      ​@Timmy Teehee Drones with paint buckets or paint guns can be smaller and cheaper than something made to carry a real weapon I suppose. This would make it more viable to use them in larger numbers.

  • Bubblezov Love
    Bubblezov Love Місяць тому

    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.... 😮

    IMAN7THRYLOS 29 днів тому +11

    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.

  • Nick Papa.
    Nick Papa. Місяць тому +1

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

  • Comy TigerZon
    Comy TigerZon 4 місяці тому +1037

    "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!

    • Mortablunt
      Mortablunt 4 місяці тому +26

      Entered combat a few months ago

    • Ulrich Kälber
      Ulrich Kälber 4 місяці тому +185

      @Mortablunt claimed to be in combat a few month ago.
      so far only claims.

    • Titanium Rain
      Titanium Rain 4 місяці тому +56

      ​@D Train we don't bring those to parades

    • Centurio Noomae
      Centurio Noomae 4 місяці тому +3

      @D Train Very good point. I concur.

    • Fibber 2U
      Fibber 2U 4 місяці тому +55

      @D Train At least the British Army would never have a 40 mile long trafic jam in the combat zone. So there are some advantages to never having enough of anything.

  • jan veit
    jan veit 2 місяці тому +1

    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).

    • Forrest Penrod
      Forrest Penrod 2 місяці тому

      Ukraine has committed its limited supply of Western tanks to the battlefield while Russia deploys the dregs of its junkyards. The time to deploy T-14s has come and gone many, many times throughout this war and yet they're held back like no other single weapons system.
      This suggests they're crap tanks or the Russian leadership is not confident enough in them to risk losing given the prestige they represent.

  • Ira Forina-Ridgwell
    Ira Forina-Ridgwell Місяць тому +1

    Great piece of work as expected from The Tank Museum

  • Aardvark Biscuit
    Aardvark Biscuit 4 місяці тому +33

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

    • Андрей Алтунин
      Андрей Алтунин 3 місяці тому

      Do you mean how effectively he destroys fortified areas, blindages? Surely not worse than other tanks

    • Aardvark Biscuit
      Aardvark Biscuit 3 місяці тому +12

      @Андрей Алтунин - I have no idea how it will perform. I know what the talking heads say but talking heads appear to lie all the time. Only on the battlefield can you see how well something works.

    • Francesco Nicoletti
      Francesco Nicoletti Місяць тому +1

      Well it’s not effective if it’s not in production and not on the battlefield.

    • Андрей Алтунин
      Андрей Алтунин Місяць тому

      @Francesco Nicolettihow do you know if armata is on production and on the battlefield?

    • Aardvark Biscuit
      Aardvark Biscuit Місяць тому

      @Francesco Nicoletti - I guess I wont see one in combat then.

  • JD_500SAC
    JD_500SAC 4 місяці тому +45

    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.

    • Owls Studio
      Owls Studio 4 місяці тому +10

      No, not at all. The crew must be in the tower and among them there must be a black guy throwing new shells into the barrel.

    • OLLlaJIeJIblu_KoPHeT
      OLLlaJIeJIblu_KoPHeT 3 місяці тому

      ​@Owls Studio lel

    • Owls Studio
      Owls Studio 3 місяці тому +2

      @Tanks in Space_ 🤮

    • Dmi Rus
      Dmi Rus Місяць тому

      @Tanks in Space_ ....and he was a woman before

    • Ice Tea
      Ice Tea  Місяць тому +4

      the crew is protected in an 800mm rha equivalent thick armored capsole. The front of the hull is said to be 1500mm of protection vs chemical and 900mm of protection vs kinetic threats. I cant remember seeing any details about the turret, side and rear armor of the hull nor the engine deck. But the AFGHANIT aps is said to be able to stop kinetic projectiles travelling at 1800meters per second . Malachit ERA is said to be twice as effective as Relikt ERA that the T-90M, T-80bvm and T-72b3s uses.

  • Paul Harrison
    Paul Harrison 2 місяці тому +18

    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.

    • Игнат Понамарёв
      Игнат Понамарёв 2 місяці тому +6

      Kinda like this, but its not precise

    • Hey bro nice dick
      Hey bro nice dick 2 місяці тому

      t70 is ww2 tank

    • Евгений кириндас
      Евгений кириндас Місяць тому

      Дружище это танк разработан с древнейших времён тоесть 33 года назад

    • Alex Dunphy
      Alex Dunphy Місяць тому +2

      ​@Евгений кириндасit's not the same tank at t-95

    • ViktorBezK
      ViktorBezK Місяць тому +4

      The design of the T-14 starts around 2010 after the canselation of the Object.195 (or T-95). I think it was publicaly revealed in 2015 for the first time.

  • bardylon
    bardylon 4 місяці тому +1940

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

    • bigrob966
      bigrob966 4 місяці тому +139

      The best way to discern real footage is to determine whether the turret is spinning wildly. If it is, it's real footage.

    • Awm Joeyjoejoe
      Awm Joeyjoejoe 4 місяці тому +109

      ​​@bigrob966T14 is a dual use vehicle. Tank and Helicopter all in one.

    • namewarvergeben
      namewarvergeben 4 місяці тому +28

      @Awm Joeyjoejoe eeking out a few extra centimeters in the turret-tossing challenge

    • Jean-Yves Mead
      Jean-Yves Mead 4 місяці тому +19

      @bigrob966 Isn't it amazing what one can power with clockwork?

    • abrlcklnthewall
      abrlcklnthewall 4 місяці тому +21

      If it's stuck then it's a T14

  • Bab Boon
    Bab Boon Місяць тому +1

    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.

  • Tolik
    Tolik Місяць тому +4

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

  • Rajat
    Rajat 2 місяці тому +2

    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.

  • cyka blyat 123 br
    cyka blyat 123 br 2 місяці тому +3

    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.

  • Patrick Hutton
    Patrick Hutton Місяць тому

    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.

  • rafis117
    rafis117 4 місяці тому +244

    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.

    • Arctic Haze
      Arctic Haze 4 місяці тому +77

      Not if the survivality of your tank in the battlefield is under one hour.

    • Richard Thomas
      Richard Thomas 4 місяці тому +32

      Also corrosion could be an issy.

    • Stuka
      Stuka 4 місяці тому +37

      It may be that the breech and or the entire turret assembly is in some way hermetically sealed, and kept at a high enough positive pressure that the breech opening doesn’t let in much smoke(that can easily be handled by filtration).
      Could also be that it’s not really an actual “meant to be fielded” tank and so there simply hasn’t been a fume extractor added to the design yet.

    • A_SweetRoll
      A_SweetRoll 4 місяці тому +13

      Dont need one when one will get provided when it gets penned.

    • james gornall
      james gornall 4 місяці тому

      ​@Arctic Hazewell, that's about how long this "counterattack will make headway, yeah?

  • schlunggi cheib
    schlunggi cheib 4 місяці тому +3

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

    JOHAN SCHOEMAN 4 місяці тому +4

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

  • DW
    DW 3 місяці тому +6

    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.

    • knoll
      knoll Місяць тому

      Apart from drones that us pretty much what tanks do
      Tank on tank is rare

  • cliff woodbury
    cliff woodbury 4 місяці тому +1

    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.

    • Bart Hoving
      Bart Hoving 4 місяці тому +1

      Might be implemented But the question is will it be in a functional and reliable way? The US has several revolutionary designs in its history where the new designs were simply a bridge to far.

    • rightiswrong rightiswrong
      rightiswrong rightiswrong Місяць тому

      The video does mention the Soviets were the first people to use dual stabilisation, first to use smoothbore barrels, first to use night sights, first to use a gas turbine engine and they were also the first to use composite armour on tanks.
      The chances of Russia implementing their tank designs are 100%, they have form and a track record of introducing new and ground breaking ideas and technology.
      The people stating that Russia can't afford the T14, are the same people who say Russia is out of ammunition every month since Feb 2022, the same people who say washing machine microchips are what runs Russian missiles, which Russia is allegedly out of every month.

    • The Notorious T.M.I.
      The Notorious T.M.I. 29 днів тому

      @rightiswrong rightiswrongIf their tech is so superior why is that T14 isn’t seen on the battlefield? Because it doesn’t exist. There are only some prototypes that are tractors on rails and tank-like shell.

  • Kelly Moses
    Kelly Moses 4 місяці тому +4

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

  • Douglas McDonald
    Douglas McDonald 4 місяці тому +843

    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.

    • Noah Mayer
      Noah Mayer 4 місяці тому +84

      Even with today's advanced sensors, probably works great to stick your head out and look from time to time.

    • Brett S
      Brett S 4 місяці тому +61

      I think this is a solid point in abstract, but I also think it can be entirely solved through training and good cameras. Once you know your vehicles clearance, you just know. As long as training had a lot of tight clearance situations without ability to g.o.a.l (get out and look) I see it as a non issue.

    • Basil McDonnell
      Basil McDonnell 4 місяці тому +16

      I think you have probably put your finger on the problem. Video might seem like a good idea but might just not be good enough to work when someone is shooting at you.

    • Ben Holroyd
      Ben Holroyd 4 місяці тому +32

      @Basil McDonnell surely you most want cameras when someone is shooting at you. The loader won't be available to stick their head out at that point, even if they were stupid enough to want to.

    • Bart Hoving
      Bart Hoving 4 місяці тому +59

      ​@Brett S Two problems. Everything breaks, especially in the military. So failing sensors and cameras will be a problem. The problem with clearance is not the size of the tank but size of what you need to clear through. Flipping through multiple camera angles might help. But those are not as flexible as human peeking about.
      There is a reason with precise manoeuvring like (off))loading a flatbed you see outside help.
      And training involves cost and time. In a prolonged war that's a problem. And in peace if you rely on conscripts to. In reality better training is hard to achieve. Within and outside the military.
      With enough skill and talent you can make a one man turret work. That does not make it a design.

  • NemoKeine
    NemoKeine 4 місяці тому +7

    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.

    • Giacomo De Luca
      Giacomo De Luca 4 місяці тому

      Actually your's point of view is intresting. I thought they maybe needs some amphibious "skills" because of their territory characteristics.

    • sting2death
      sting2death 2 місяці тому +3

      Most of the BMPs likely have their amphibious capabilities compromised because of their sheer age, having damage, decaying gaskets, and lack of maintenance for that function.

  • RedHandCommando 1690
    RedHandCommando 1690 5 днів тому +1

    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

  • drgonzo305
    drgonzo305 2 місяці тому +4

    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.

    • Ice Tea
      Ice Tea  Місяць тому

      The Afghanit APS the T-14 uses is stated to be capable of protecting it against top attack munitions.

  • Säbelzahnmöwe
    Säbelzahnmöwe 4 місяці тому +6

    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.

    • BadMuflon
      BadMuflon 4 місяці тому +3

      Yeah it should have been but the t43s 20mms of increased frontal armor wasnt enough to cope with the German 88 and it wasnt as fast as the t34 so the Soviets decided to cancel the t43 project and went to upgrade the t34s with the 85mm gun so they used the upgraded t34-85s rather then producing a whole new tank.The t44 was built in the last years of the war with ~150 tanks but it never saw combat in ww2. It basically was a prototype for the t55...

  • oknevals
    oknevals Місяць тому +1

    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.

    • Nick
      Nick Місяць тому

      I'm sure that armoured warfare will consist of remotely controlled tanks in a not too distant future. Probably controlled by an engineer- or signal corps further back from the battlefield. It would not at all surprize me if the up-and-coming generation of main battle tanks is the last one to be manned by humans.

    • oknevals
      oknevals Місяць тому

      @Nick I agree. I think that AI targeting systems already exist or are in development. It is not mature technology yet. There are many unresolved issues. Some in logistics like refueling, reloading ammo, fixing smaller jamms and breaks, electronic interference. Other issues are in usage models like coordination and communication with other units, support or assistance to or from other branches and troops, friendly fire avoidance, distingushing active and surrendering enemy, etc. Armies around world are already experimenting with reduced scale prototypes but, tech is either not ready or not reliable and robust enough.

  • Henry Schultz
    Henry Schultz 4 місяці тому +155

    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.

      ACE DOGBOY 4 місяці тому +17

      Reliable untill they talked abt the engine….

    • Ted Ferkin
      Ted Ferkin 4 місяці тому +28

      Chieftain has also spoken about the ever present issue of ergonomics as well. Good that they are in a nice little protected tub. However, commander cannot poke his head out to have a look around, which is still the best way of getting situational awareness. They are reliant on a very small number of optics to see outside the tank, disable those with something as simple as paint and they are buggered.
      Given the ambushes that Ukraine seem to be able to set for the Russian tank crews, this would be my least favourite tank to go into battle with. I think even the T54/55 might be better, the extra crewman for logistics and maintenance would be a bonus for a start. It will be interesting to see how the Challenger and Leopard tanks fair in this "modern" warfare as well.

    • BlutoandCo
      BlutoandCo 4 місяці тому +13

      Its called corruption, not supply chain issues 😂

    • Random Ka-52 Alligator That is Still in The Air
      Random Ka-52 Alligator That is Still in The Air 4 місяці тому +16

      @BlutoandCo Having 3 different MBTs in service with the largest country in the world is going to run into supply chain issues nothing shocking. Corruption is another whole issue.

  • Anonanon
    Anonanon 4 місяці тому +8

    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).

  • Matthew Farrell
    Matthew Farrell 4 місяці тому +15

    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.)

    • OLLlaJIeJIblu_KoPHeT
      OLLlaJIeJIblu_KoPHeT 3 місяці тому +1

      In fact of raising proxy wars danger, which was denied before, who knows. Maybe they FINALLY decide to prioritise self defence over trading

  • Lucky 13
    Lucky 13 Місяць тому

    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.

    • Duncomrade
      Duncomrade Місяць тому

      The sight actually decouples from the gun during reload, so the gunner can look around, then when it's loaded the gun automatically realigns with the sight.

  • Miron Vulakh
    Miron Vulakh 4 місяці тому +4

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

  • Alex Hubble
    Alex Hubble 3 місяці тому +1

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

  • Devin Braun
    Devin Braun 4 місяці тому +113

    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.

    • Project: W.A.A.P.F.T.A.D
      Project: W.A.A.P.F.T.A.D 4 місяці тому

      Were you ever stationed in Korea? 2/72?

    • Devin Braun
      Devin Braun 4 місяці тому +1

      @Project: W.A.A.P.F.T.A.D No, I was never stationed there. I went TDY once for a planning conference, but that is my only experience in Korea.

    • SlinkyTWF
      SlinkyTWF 4 місяці тому +2

      Former 19E1/2 from 348th ACAV (ARNG) here. Represent!

    • Conserpov
      Conserpov 4 місяці тому +3

      _> I found this to be a great informative video._
      I find you gullible.

    • Devin Braun
      Devin Braun 4 місяці тому +4

      @Conserpov perfectly irrelevant

  • Chris Edwards
    Chris Edwards 4 місяці тому +2

    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.

    • Reckless Rodent
      Reckless Rodent 4 місяці тому

      And that rifled gun is disappearing on the upgrade to Chally 3 to enable us to use NATO standard rounds.

    • Chris Edwards
      Chris Edwards 27 днів тому

      @Reckless Rodent Is that really an advantage though, you lose range on sabot and about 6 kilometers in the indirect fire role with HESH.
      Why fix what isn´t broken?
      There again, do you need such things as indirect fire with other systems around.
      As the UK is unable to actually produce MBT´s anyway we shall probably end up buying Leopard 2 or 3 , hopefully they will swap to Dorchester armour as the German armour on Leopard 2 is crap, as seen in Syria.

  • Franck Sasser
    Franck Sasser 2 місяці тому

    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.

    • Jedediah Galloway
      Jedediah Galloway Місяць тому +1

      Russian tanks are really bad for this, especially the Soviet-designed ones. They were obsessed with keeping tanks small and ever flatter to the point they were cramming ever shorter people in.

  • nerdfatha
    nerdfatha 4 місяці тому +3

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

  • André Silva
    André Silva 4 місяці тому +36

    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.

    • Ajohnymous
      Ajohnymous Місяць тому

      So is it a myth that tankers had to be 5'1-5'3 back in the day, or did they improve the space in vehicles as time went on after the T-34 and T-54/55?

    • André Silva
      André Silva Місяць тому +1

      @Ajohnymous I can only talk about my experience, but T54/55 (I have no experience with T34) is considerably less spacious and has poorer ergonomics than a T64 and a T90.

  • Daniel Vandersall
    Daniel Vandersall 4 місяці тому +253

    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.

    • Stu Bur
      Stu Bur 4 місяці тому +45

      It failed even in a parade. Broke down in a cloud of smoke. The engine is hopelessly bad.

    • Sanka Plays
      Sanka Plays 4 місяці тому +8

      Thats because they cut and paste the footage of the turret to make it seem like its very long, its actually a small fragment displaying the turrets two way stabilization and turret rotation speed. Every armored vehicle is one armor penetrating shell away from being a fireball, its some fascade that "our tanks are so much better"

    • B Cluett
      B Cluett 4 місяці тому +3

      Well, if there was a video they probably filmed it themselves. I guess they didn't like what they saw or they'd be broadcasting it to the moon and back.

    • Sanka Plays
      Sanka Plays 4 місяці тому +15

      @B Cluett It was promotional material from the arms production company, like Western arms makers make for their tanks, I dont know why everybody is looking into this so hard.

    • SGT. NMI
      SGT. NMI 4 місяці тому +7

      The "turret" is actually a radar unit.

  • Sergey Loverow
    Sergey Loverow 3 місяці тому +1

    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?

    • Айдар Талипов
      Айдар Талипов 3 місяці тому +2

      человек это слабое звено.
      это хрупкий элемент танка, занимающий много места, со хрупкой моралью, который может быть легко сломан, чем электроника или иные механизмы.
      что он сделает, если заклинит башню или разломает прицельное приспособление или порвет гусеницы?
      это не вторая мировая война, где можно было инструментом и молотком починить танк, сейчас такую сложную поврежденную машину нужно вести на ремонтный завод

    • Minh Nguyễn
      Minh Nguyễn 11 днів тому

      And america copy the unmanned turret and auto loader 😂(abrams x)

  • Andy Bones
    Andy Bones 4 місяці тому +4

    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

  • Юрий Кастро
    Юрий Кастро 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • Kris p
    Kris p 4 місяці тому +3

    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.

  • mark Barnes
    mark Barnes 3 місяці тому +5

    Im ex army ranger and I love your tank talks

  • Hal Crafer
    Hal Crafer 4 місяці тому +723

    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

    • Ben Winter
      Ben Winter 4 місяці тому +1


    • TheTuberKnownAsMe
      TheTuberKnownAsMe 4 місяці тому +59

      Just wait for those F16 ERA variants in the hands of the Ukraine air forces. It will be glorious

    • magnetmannenbannanen
      magnetmannenbannanen 4 місяці тому +26

      i installed some ERA on my Rav4, it turned into a hangarship, currently docked in oslo, look it up.

    • Aykay™
      Aykay™ 4 місяці тому +31

      Bro u need ERA on yor ERA

  • HCShuffle
    HCShuffle 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • Pavel
    Pavel 4 місяці тому +2

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

  • TheTrueThot
    TheTrueThot 2 місяці тому

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

  • Roger Hill
    Roger Hill 3 місяці тому +4

    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.

  • Vlad Craioveanu
    Vlad Craioveanu Місяць тому

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

  • Exka
    Exka 4 місяці тому +133

    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.

    • Billy Enforcee
      Billy Enforcee 4 місяці тому +4

      Thank you for this comment.

    • Jedediah Galloway
      Jedediah Galloway 4 місяці тому +3

      Must have had next gen thermo-optical active camouflage since there's so few sightings.

    • Max G
      Max G 4 місяці тому +3

      THANK YOU! Someone knows his stuff.

    • Koppány Kovács
      Koppány Kovács 4 місяці тому +2

      Lazerpig made these mistakes too.

  • sum dum guy
    sum dum guy 4 місяці тому

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

  • Sergiy Honcharuk
    Sergiy Honcharuk 3 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • Александар Матић
    Александар Матић 4 місяці тому +21

    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.

    • Robert Hickman
      Robert Hickman 4 місяці тому +4

      Yep, its like the ultimate German tank the King Tiger or whatever it was and the K-Wagen from WW1. Both tanks were amazing and could probably destroy everything, but for every 1 Tiger made they'd be like 10 other tanks.
      I remember this was the philosophy of the Germans and US in WW2, the panzers were superior in everyway but the US had so many Sherman tanks and were outproducing the Panzers that any loss of the Panzer hurt the Germans more than the loss of a Sherman to the US.
      In the modern day the US is like Germany and the Russia is like the US. The USSR/Russia VASTLY outnumber the tanks of the US, thats the superior advantage that they have. Any loss of an Abrams does more damage than any T72 loss. Now, with the T14 the table is flipped. The fact that Putin didn't follow typical USSR doctrine just goes to show you how delusional he is. Its the same story with how bad the AK-12 is compared to the AK74M and AK100 series.

    • Александар Матић
      Александар Матић 4 місяці тому +2

      @Robert Hickman I would not be quick to compare US to Germany and Russia to US in that way. Yes, Abrams is a superior tank to T-72 (and newer) and more expensive... but USA had, and has, the ability to produce, field, repair and replace those Abrams on the same scale as Russia has with T-72.
      So I would not say that it hurts USA more to lose Abrams than it hurts Russia to lose T-72. Frankly, even though T-72 is overall cheaper and simpler to produce, Russian economy and industrial capacity is so bad that I think it still hurts them more to lose MBT like that than it hurts USA.
      Abrams is more on pair with T-90 I think, and Russia has a hard time of fielding those, because they came around when the USSR was going down so not that many were made. The reason why T-72 is still the most seen tank is because it came around at the height of USSR industrial might.
      For small arms, I'd agree with you. But for these tanks, US economy is still so much bigger than Russian one that even a loss of such an expensive tank as Abrams is easier for US to withstand than for Russia to lose a 50 year old tank.

  • David
    David 4 місяці тому +3

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

  • Molovich Storch
    Molovich Storch 4 місяці тому +27

    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!).

    • Ribbed Helm
      Ribbed Helm 4 місяці тому +3

      Finally someone who is a tank nerd in this sea of memes

    • Marc M.
      Marc M. 4 місяці тому +10

      One miss-statement is that Russia is the greatest tank producing nation, we keep on forgetting that that was the Soviet Union, and the Russian federation is not the Soviet Union. For one, they are missing the Ukrainians, who were part of that massive industrial state. And many of the other ex Soviet States also contributed mightly to that industrial base. It would be just as accurate for me to say that the Ukrainians created the second most powerful Navy of second half of the 20th century. Given that almost all of the major surface ship combatants were made in Ukrainian territory, mostly with Ukrainian industry, it would be just as accurate. But the reality is that Ukraine could never create such a massive or capable Navy, neither can the Russian federation. Nor can Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania all of which contributed to that capability. The Soviet Union created that mass of tanks, not the Russian federation and the Russian federation never could and never will be able to equal that capability

      HISTORY 4 місяці тому +4

      M Berg Today, the elite of NATO armored vehicles is powerless on the Ukrainian front, against the Russian (rubbish) 😁

  • Don Shipman
    Don Shipman 18 днів тому +1

    T-90 is such a beautiful tank

  • Roy Johnson
    Roy Johnson 4 місяці тому +25

    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.

    • k-21
      k-21 3 місяці тому +7

      yeah...so tell it to the Russian crews that goes...pop goes the weasel whenever the top turret blows.
      Do you think the "tax dollars" spent for development come anywhere "close" to the amount of Rubles "siphoned" throughout their "KLEPTOCRACY" and general staffs and not into developments of their weapon systems.
      The Ukraine war has revealed the inept military and "hardly" functional military equipment. For God's sake they send personnel carriers out on flat tires. Tanks and supporting apparatus is "nearly" non-existence. They had to pillage local convenience stores for supplies.

    • Vladimir
      Vladimir 3 місяці тому +1

      @k-21 Yes, you have propaganda like Goebbels.

    • Саша Суральмаша
      Саша Суральмаша 2 місяці тому +1

      T14 had only one problem- engine/powertran unit mass production. All the other is ok

    • Sheik Bombalot
      Sheik Bombalot 2 місяці тому

      NATO tanks are getting blown up and incapacitated left and right as well. Despite their supposed technical superiority.
      (And good luck repairing them!)
      The Russian tanks otoh are fairly easy to repair, and has better maneuverability.
      For the current conflict, their existing tanks fit the bill.
      Hopefully we will get to see more of the Armata after the war.

  • Dragica Djuric
    Dragica Djuric 22 дні тому +1

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

  • J W
    J W 4 місяці тому +21

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

    • Hunter Smith
      Hunter Smith 4 місяці тому +18

      Blew up.

    • Reckless Rodent
      Reckless Rodent 4 місяці тому +12

      What happened to infantry support is what did it for Russia! The vast majority of the professional combat units were destroyed when Putin made the mistake of mobilizing without the conscripts (the dismounted infantry that should be protecting the tanks from ambush) he sent in the bulk of his professional tank commanders, drivers and gunners to their death - they now have very little left in terms of serviceable modern tanks with experienced crews. Even if Russia mobilized fully today - they'd have the grunts but they don't have the professional combat units - you cannot magic those out of thin air in months. His "special operation" approach has already doomed Russia to defeat.

    • Ulrich Kälber
      Ulrich Kälber 4 місяці тому +11

      it seems a rather interesting idea that did not withstand the test of reality.
      i have seen footage of it firing its autocannons, the barrels vibrate like they are rubber *censored*s
      i do not think that is effective at all.
      somebody had a good(or maybe not?) idea and somebody tried to put together the parts without proper RnD behind it. seems to be a waste to build them.
      or the intention is just propaganda, might be the parallel to the T14...

    • Alex Katc
      Alex Katc 4 місяці тому +21

      What is happening with "terminator"?
      It is working right now near Kremennaya.
      Killing nazi, i think.

    • artnull13
      artnull13 4 місяці тому +13

      @Alex Katc killing ruscist Nazi’s - ah so the story of the Terminator moving down a whole platoon of retreating spetznatz was true then 😂

  • Dice Tales
    Dice Tales Місяць тому

    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😎

  • exsoda345128
    exsoda345128 4 місяці тому +163

    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"

    • Viktor Marynyuk
      Viktor Marynyuk 4 місяці тому +46

      Or he needs a new yacht

    • trololoev
      trololoev 4 місяці тому +11

      T-90m can fight any existing targets, so you better produce them.
      Also t-90 is most tested platform, so it incredible reliable

    • Kuun Oooo
      Kuun Oooo 4 місяці тому +3

      It does work but its very expansive

    • Aaron Cabatingan
      Aaron Cabatingan 4 місяці тому +20

      ​@Viktor Marynyuk If he needs a new yacht, he would announce that they will build 3000 T14s and then steal the money for those T14s to buy his own yacht

    • HistoryFan476AD
      HistoryFan476AD 4 місяці тому +3

      I mean why build a T-14 really, The US don't build a new tank every time they need an upgrade they just upgrade the Abram to fight modern needs, same can be done with the T-80s and T-90s. And even Britain's "New" Challenger 3 is some Challenger 2s being upgraded and given a new name.

  • Richard W.
    Richard W. 4 місяці тому +3

    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

  • nemoest0
    nemoest0 4 місяці тому

    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

  • E.V. Hodge
    E.V. Hodge 4 місяці тому +6

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

  • none
    none 4 місяці тому

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

  • Danny Shaw
    Danny Shaw 24 дні тому

    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.

  • Bikechain
    Bikechain 4 місяці тому +43

    Will be interested to see the first T14 at Bovington!

    • roadsweeper1
      roadsweeper1 4 місяці тому +49

      Along with the ukranian tractor that towed it there 😂

    • Lex luther VII
      Lex luther VII 4 місяці тому +12

      That's if it cab defeat the Ukrainian Tractors 🚜

    • HeXo4yXA
      HeXo4yXA 4 місяці тому +4

      I think Challenger will appear in Kubinka much earlier. We’re waiting ! 🥂

    • Tom K
      Tom K 4 місяці тому +2

      I think we see first Abrams at Kubianka museum. It is coming.

    • Zevin
      Zevin 4 місяці тому +3

      @Tom K Challenger too, and the captured Leopard tanks lined up next to German WW2 tanks..

  • Ivannst
    Ivannst 2 місяці тому +3

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

  • RJ T
    RJ T 3 місяці тому

    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.

  • Kris Frederick
    Kris Frederick 29 днів тому +1

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

  • FracturedButWhole
    FracturedButWhole 4 місяці тому

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

  • Zoltán Pósfai
    Zoltán Pósfai 4 місяці тому +8

    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.

    • Galova
      Galova 3 місяці тому

      It is a popular myth about soviet computer technology. If you can count 2+2 you may realize what was the reason of latest decades' technological boom. Eventually it matches ussr collapse in time. you simply compare before/after

  • Jeff Dayman
    Jeff Dayman 4 місяці тому +16

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

    • Meat Salad
      Meat Salad 4 місяці тому +2

      "unique" is one way of saying it, blatant propaganda is another

    • Conserpov
      Conserpov 4 місяці тому +1

      Do you also still believe in Saddam's WMD? 🤣

      TANSTAAFL 4 місяці тому +2

      What would these corny dudes know about battlefield realities?

  • Comrade Da
    Comrade Da 4 місяці тому

    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.

  • Sandgroper 1970
    Sandgroper 1970 4 місяці тому +1

    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.

  • Max Krz
    Max Krz 4 місяці тому

    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.

  • Black mantis
    Black mantis Місяць тому

    Unmanned turret is a great idea tbh.

  • Dusan Bolek
    Dusan Bolek 3 місяці тому

    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.

  • Doc. J.
    Doc. J. 4 місяці тому +63

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

    • Ben Winter
      Ben Winter 4 місяці тому +1

      Enough fore lock tugging . . sugar is bad for the health

  • lloyd9710
    lloyd9710 3 місяці тому +3

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

    • MajorZero
      MajorZero 2 місяці тому

      With advent of augmented reality and virtual reality, this might be a workable system if it were allowed to mature

    • Ira Forina-Ridgwell
      Ira Forina-Ridgwell Місяць тому

      Errrr u recall a Swedish Tank...ermmm?

  • sillybilly121212
    sillybilly121212 4 місяці тому +12

    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.

    • the1Blind
      the1Blind 4 місяці тому +9

      There is a little known feature where a second rotor blade will come out of the back of the turret. The turret then spins quickly enough to generate the lift necessary for the tank to fly.

    • sillybilly121212
      sillybilly121212 4 місяці тому +3

      @the1Blind that's incredible. Russians...what will they come up with next?

    • Markle2k
      Markle2k 4 місяці тому +2

      @the1Blind That is an improvement upon the turret’s ability to use the ammunition to loft itself above the crew. Not much of an offensive capability, but still…

    • Blackout
      Blackout 4 місяці тому +1

      @Markle2k It enables the turret to ram enemy drones right above the tank.

    • olisk
      olisk 4 місяці тому

      Why would it hinder its ability to "traverse gaps larger than a puddle", lol? Seriously, just don't comment idf you don't know anything about tanks whatsoever. It's more than long enough to traverse the common tarrain its supposed to roll on. Unless you're thinking tanks are supposed to jump from rooftop to rooftop like in fast and furious, which would explain a lot.

  • kloothommel65
    kloothommel65 3 місяці тому +2

    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 😂

    • Dimitri_Kharikov
      Dimitri_Kharikov 3 місяці тому

      Such things are not a concern

    • kloothommel65
      kloothommel65 3 місяці тому

      @Dimitri_Kharikov because the Armata will only see action as a propaganda piece??? XD

    • Dimitri_Kharikov
      Dimitri_Kharikov 3 місяці тому

      @kloothommel65 Like they wont make the system themeselfs

  • Daniel Martin
    Daniel Martin 4 місяці тому +1

    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