- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Problem with t14? It is first Russian tank to get rid of famous Emergency Turret Ejection system xaxaxa In all seriousness, t14 is actually pretty cool tank.
It acualy is not. Autoloader in T-14 still takes rounds from the magazine on the floor under the turret (if loaded), so any hit in it and T-14 turret goes as high as its predecessors :P
Could you please do a video where you describe what you believe a world class tank should be like. It’s doesn’t have to be a existing one but maybe get different parts and put them together
German optics, Gun (130mm), FCS and engine. Russian ERA, autoloader and APS American DU Composite armor, multi purpose HE and DU KE round South Korean KE top attack round Crewless turret, blow out ammo panels, reduced thermal and radar signature, hybrid drive and a 20mm coaxial cannon.
What really boggles me about the T14 is how the Russians have somehow made a tank with a larger footprint after using design features that’s supposed to make the tank smaller.
The reason for that is that modern FCS and Anti Tank munitions can easily hit tanks no matter the size, according to Zaloga M1A1 tanks knocked out several T-72 tanks from 4km back in 1991 Gulf War, that was 30 years ago, modern FCS have even further advanced, size no longer matters. Another reason why is because they needed space for long APFSDS projectiles, new Vacuum is reported to be ~1m long, so they needed space to fit them inside, as well as provide enough space and comfort for the entire crew to be stationed in the hull. Those are some of the reasons I could think of at the top of my head, there could be more.
Because that "smaller, thus harder to hit" it's true but not a big difference in combat. Situational awareness, ergonomics and those soft characteristics are the ones you need to bet on.
While intended as a joke, it is unironically true. Tanks, in a modern environment are consumable resources, the more expensive they are, the less likely it is to keep the foodchain going. It doesn't matter if it costs 1 Million or 100 Million, all tanks burn the same. Also the reason why no Leopard or Challenger is a game changer when there are hand full of them.
This is probably the most electronic-dependent tank currently. In Ukraine, soldiers reported that a good old sight was preferable. Of course when it works, it's a beast. But if it's countered, or disabled, it becomes a sitting duck
When you mentioned the only primary sight for the main gun, all I could think of, as a former tanker, was the location of that sight, being flanked by those vertical plains, would surely create a shot trap for any projectiles; anything like a 50 cal round would piece those les-than-an-inch thick armored doors and destroy the sight behind it. Just my personal observation for what it's worth. Stay safe, all, wherever you are.
Armata has all around radar, so it will track Javelin. The problem with Armata is size and price. It a big tank which makes for a big target. It's also expensive which means you can't field a lot of them.
Armata is a platform that can be upgraded for many years in the future. The old tanks have exhausted the modernization resource, there is no reserve for the future. But today there are enough old tanks, you can take your time with new ones.
It’s ironic how the one country that was known for just pure production numbers and creating a wall made with tanks (credit, these tanks were designed to last 3-4 weeks) is also the one country critically struggling with trying to produce enough tanks…
I highly doubt they would not have a way to deal with misfires during battle. If the crew isn't in the turret to clear it and the autoloading system can't deal with it either, the gun would essentially be disabled. A tank with no gun is an armored paperweight. It wouldn't make sense to let that happen.
Please dont say this on a worldwide platform as yt, or else some Rajeesh will be offended to the extend of every single tech support scammer terrorizing you and your female family members for bobs and veganas. Dont you know that the only reason aliens didint contact us yet is because of fear of India being such a superpower by 2025 that they will make alien technology look like some steam powered obsolete shit?
One thing also to note from this video is, no the us also doesn't have billions to just sink in everything in the militairy. Hence they have big boneyard to either keep some vehicles flying or sold off, and the abrams often get rebuild instead of simply replaced.. also the b52 is planned to keep flying until it's over 100 if not longer.. it is somewhat rare for the us to outright replace older vehicles if they can be upgraded..
IS there any word on what those sight covers can resist? The sight opening looks like a relatively easy target for a sniper, and a bullet through the optics could be a quick mission kill.
On commander view issue : if the Russians view the T-14 as a sort of “elite spearhead tank”, the T-14 would be in a mixed battalion accompanied by other tanks like T-90M T-80BVM. Hence any shortages in the tank abilities can be (to some extent) covered by the rest of the battalion. It is just a guess but it seems likely!
I love red effect. Most channels that discuss tanks only praise them and give positives. Its so refreshing to have a channel that provides the full picture so that I can form a correct opinion for myself.
I get your point, but from what I’ve said I’m guessing you’ve never been in a tank. The reverse gear is one of the most important gears in a tank, you will be looking over the back just as much as you would be facing forward. You move upto a fire position, fire, reverse out of it.
Prehaps the lack of a backup sight is because they reason that if the turret is hit, knocking out the sights then the rest of the turret will most likely also be ruined in the process meaning that they are effectivly "mission killed" regardless?
It is interesting that the new batch of T90M tanks was sent to the Taman division..this was the first division to receive the T14. One would think that if the Taman Division was going to receive T14 in the near term there would be no logic in supplying T90M.
For "miss fire" Russia will probably use the same mechanism as they use in 2A42 30mm guns. If a miss fire is present there is a charge punching through the case of the round and igniting the powder inside.
One of the T14s shortcoming is the thinly armored turret. This coupled with the lack of dual gunner sights could be a problem if the tank were to take a hit to the turret.
ah yes, the Armata is capable of detecting the top-attack munitions by using its AESA radars, those radars are integrated with the the armata's active and passive defense systems, and, like other AESA, radars, they have the ability to jam radar seekers such as those used on the hellfire, they also operate in a high frequency spectrum, Ka-Band, which further increases their precision and sensitivity, due to this precision, it's also very possible that the radars themselves can be used by the crew to detect targets and identify them without even looking into their cameras, the only other tank to have AESA radars is the Merkava-4 with its trophy APS but they operate on a much lower frequency than the Armata's radars, only S-Band, which only makes them effective defensively to help the APS with its role.
As it stands no new T-14's have been produced since the intial batch of 25+ vehicles in 2014 and the factory hasn't even been tooled up to produce these vehicles yet so as it stands T-90M will take T-14's place since T-90M is going to receive new 2A82M main gun and Afganit APS. Problem is the commander cannot effectively scan for targets while on the move because the Commander is shaking around inside which makes looking through CITV rather annoying so while on road march commanders usually rely on the old Mk 1 eyeball looking through parascopes or having their hatch in half open configuration where as T-14 cannot do this as effectively like other tanks and previous T-72 style tanks because because T-14 doesn't have 360° field of view from the commanders position and while T-72 doesn't have half open position the large hatch acts as additional armor against small arms fire. Also the problem is mounting a back up on T-14 is pointless because the point of a backup sight is its meant to be analog so the gunner can use the sight in the event of PSU failure or the primary sight being damaged and is usually slaved to the main gun. Having an extra camera to act as a back up primary sight defeats the purpose of a true analog back up sight.
Never really got the argument about T-14 and its guns survivability. That being well even if the gun is taken out the crew is still fine. There are so few of these tanks it is not like the crew can just jump into a new T-14. Infact The whole point of a tnak is its gun isnt it? otherwise it is a veryt small APC. Yes you need ot protect crew and if there was hundreds of these things that would be great but with current numbers it seems you would want it to keep shooting as long as possible. well jsut a thought anyway.
They wont even biuld enough of them. Their economy is stagnating, ruble is in a weak spot. Yes they may have all these cool designs, blueprints and words about their “new” technologies and machines, but the truth is they cant compete with either americans or the chinese just based on the budget of each military
I think it's just based on training, their tanks are good actually one of the best but their training is just as good as any other any other third world country.
the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank needs to have a manned turret variant . . . a turret roof hatch for observation can be incorporated in the unmanned turret of the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank . . . thus requiring minimum modifications to the inside of the unmanned turret . . . a separate hatch is also needed for gunner, as you rightly mentioned . . . quite a few modifications (big & small) are needed in the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank before it goes into battle . . . the T-72BM armoured (STANAG 4569 3A+/3B MRAP) main battle tank (and it's other variants) is otherwise a brilliant piece of offensive hardware . . . only if it was a bit more refined . . .
Luka Opačak. It’s not a problem for the developers, since war thunder is a very authentic game. It authentically represents developer’s personal whims and bias on how tanks should be.
On the most up to date and MBT tanks there are crucial features that are highly classified and which cant be seen , these can shift balance of superiority either way
All tanks are compromises, and the unmanned turret design brings about some very interesting compromises, while providing interesting advantages. As you said, the commander cannot get good vision fighting open hatch. He is totally reliant on his cameras. There is indeed no backup sight for the gunner either, but the issues don't stop there. It is impossible for the crew to fix jams, or reload the coaxial machine gun, a frequent requirement in combat. If the autoloader has a malfunction, there is nobody in that part of the tank to attempt to fix it. I've also noted that a suitably large HE/HESH impact to the turret front could buckle and otherwise jam the hatches, trapping the crew inside, unless the vehicle has an under-floor escape hatch. I have so far not seen if that's the case. As with all Russian designs, the Armata also sacrifices gun depression for an overall lower profile and maximum frontal armour. All these compromises seem to have been accepted in return for (theoretically) superior firepower, mobility and survivability than any other MBT. We shall see how it plays out for Russia.
@@utaMAN12345 www.armadninoviny.cz/14-armata-stale-pokracuje.html www.armadninoviny.cz/rusky-tank-armata-zastaveni-vyroby.html www.armadninoviny.cz/ruska-armada-ziska-pouze-16-tanku-t-14-armata.html use google translate to translate it from Czech.. i really dont wanna access russian web pages, for original articles, i cannot read azbuka :)
RedEffect - I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about the T-14's turret. With the turret having almost no armor it could be hit anywhere on the turret by a HE or even kinetic round and be knocked out. Most people don't realize the force generated by an 120mm + HE round is and if it hits anywhere near the T-14's turret it has a very good chance of either knocking it completely out or disabling some systems. I know you say the turret is small but it doesn't have to even directly hit the center of the turret to knock it out. As someone who has seen many explosions, I think the turret is a big weakness!
Would be interresting to know if the crew capsule can suvivie if a catastrophic explosion in the ammo rack appears after getting hit in the ammo storage.
I love your videos. I really don't know much about modern tanks but you provided the most unbias view of tanks I have seen. Yes you only pointed out the flaws but you said so in the start of the video. Also where are you from?
backup sights? As I recall, on many modern mbt's the commander's CITV can indeed work as a backup sight when the gun is slaved to it. It should be the same on the t14.
It prob has poor accuracy on the move. Though turret is stabilized, the gunner is in the hull and would be bouncing about and would not be able to use the instruments. In other tanks you have all three (commander, gunner, loader) in the stabilized turret instead.
Except it _is_. If a tank is so expensive and so complicated in its design that it cannot be produced in good enough numbers, then it is partly the tank's fault.
Also you really didn't mention how Armata fits in with current Russian combat doctrines. To maximize Armata's effectiveness you have to use Western tactics (like maneuver warfare and hit and fade attacks). Russian tactics based on Chechnya and Syria seem to still rely on brute force and horde tactics. Plus there is a question of the training of Russian Tank crews. The T-90 seem to be a better fit as you can use them as a blunt instrument.
In your intro ad for War Thunder you say there are vehicles from the 30's to the 90's, but we actually have more modern vehicles than that. Even the AH-1Z from like 5 patches ago is from 2010.
These don't seem like serious problems so much as minor tradeoffs of the design...and things the designers were surely aware of, like the possibility of misfires without a loader (uncommon? Sure. But Russian ammunition is known to be unreliable AFAIK). "Not enough of them" also seems like a minor problem when the tank is already cheaper than say, an Abrams. The biggest military rival to Russia is the US, and "it's too expensive and we can't actually build them" describes almost every modern weapon we seem to be designing.
There is a excellent quora post on the issues of T-14 and unmanned turrets in general. It is more than likely at this point that the performances of T-14 are simply too awful that even the test requirements can't be met. Do notice that up to this point, 6 years after the Victory Parade debut, there still hasn't been a single footage showing the T-14 gun's vertical stabilization.
No problem in these tanks. Russians knows how to make best weapons in limited resources. There are still problems in m1 a1 tanks like turbine engine high heat signature expensive rubber stud tracks. Problems in desert. All world copies Russian technology in space in aircrafts in ships. You all know very well. T 14 is innovative product after 90 years.
The m1 doesn't have rubber tracks . Some newer modifications are experimenting with but it isn't going to be just like any other rubber it would made stronger chemically. The main reason for those is noise . Rubber tracks would be quite . Also russia doesn't have limited resources . It has a lot of recourses
Hypothetically yes, if an infantryman were to fire enough RPGs at T 14 to use up all of it's APS shots, then they'd eventually get through. Probably not the hull, but the turret at least. But the chance of being able to fire that many rockets at T 14 without being killed either by the tank itself or it's supporting tanks/infantry are next to zero.
of course there is, no tank is indestructible, the best option for an infantryman to take T-14 out is top attack missile if available, if not a good hit on the turret would mission killed it at least
Once there was a country that made the best tanks and the first jet fighters. But they could only make a handful compared to the cheaper tanks it’s enemies could make. One can make a tank that is three times better then all other tanks but if they can make tanks six times faster then you that’s a PROBLEM.
@@Feanor916 Yeah, kraut tanks are very good as pressure cookers in Syria, whilst united states of aipac tanks are good in action movies. Keep crying, tel aviv's drone.
your videos are very good and don't have a lot of flaws but there is one thing i need to point out your shell penetration information is outdated and inaccurate for example Svinets has a length of about 660mm and it's a whole projectile and not just a penetrator using apfsds caulculator of willi odermatt.you get a lot less penetration the same problem is with dm53 shells but for some we do not know the full length, so for them I cannot claim to be incorrect . These are one of the few remarks with your videos but all in all good videos just keep going
Id like to say that this is more of an... uparmored, less mobile, tracked tank destroyer platform. Its not made for tank vs tank combat. which yes, isnt going to be a thing really, but its always a possibility. meaning this vehicle has to be run off the front line and more as support fire from a distance. like the US M1128 MGS.
Manipulating that camera view was _painful_ to watch. The visibility is awful on this thing. And that's before snipers start picking off the commanders and gunners site.
Its very conventional . . . f.e.: no ETC cannon, no composit barrel support, no hybrid drivetrain and no plate capacitor armor considering that this would be a technology usable in road vehicles. But its good for gaining experience with modern electronics etc. and I think thats its main purpose.
Miho nishizumi had her crew drift a tank and people said it couldnt happen... even THIS tank can drift vs her panzer 4. Nuff said............ Also PANZER VOR!!!!!
Not a valid comparison because Russia uses a different basis for its defense industry. The fact that the government controls more of production and design means that costs vary wildly from Western nations which employ civilian companies for design and manufacturing.
4:34 ackchually, t14 has an active protection system that can detect projectiles via radar or 360 degree IR+UV cameras (that's their whole point, observation is just a bonus)
Its just platform (base) , and in time , theres gonna be upgrade, and its normal. Point of this unique platform is crewless turret . Very good protection ( at least russians says ??). Russia dont have no more crew mambers for change. Tank is just a tool and crew is more important nowdays than metal.
There are more problems than what are apparent. The escape hatch in the bottom would only serve as a soft spot for explosive devices, such as those seen in use in Southwest Asia. Situational awareness is poor in the T-14. You can say "Well they can use the cameras" ...but lets be real about one thing. Russia is notorious for being unable to keep up with expensive and complex systems. All it takes are for a display to go out, and the TC is relatively blind. While I agree that a narrow gun pod is nice, while in defilade it won't save you on the offense. Sorry. While there is apparent technological advantage, it has some very flawed concepts that date back to cold war doctrine which is not how much of the world fights these days.
While I agree with the idea that a smaller turret is more difficult to hit and every tank's gun mantlet is a weakspot. Having a low level of protection on the turret still opens the tank up to a greater likelihood of a firepower kill by other munitions. If anyone knows russia's armor doctrine is or why they made this design decision that'd be helpful.
- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Thoughts on alpha defense's new channel called "Blue Effect"? It's made just to shit on your vids and channel.
@@ifureadthis_urgay red already know that channel isnt worth the time
when alpha defense literally admitted he made "blue effect" in the comments section and claimed other people made it in the video
Pls make pt 91 twardy...
I want to know its problem
The problem with these tank is, It has crew protection as a priority. Stalin would be ashamed of it.
dying for the motherland is an honor
@@persistentapparartionkitty5830 gulag for you our friend
World War II era Soviet tanks actually have good armor
Face palm, Soviet style.
@@229masterchief And the T55?T 64!
Yeah sure it might be good but it simply can't compare to the Bob semple
And red won't ever make a "everything wrong with bob semple" because it's perfect chad tank design.
That joke is still a bit annoying in these tanks comparing
hahahhahahahahha funny jokr hahahahhaha hahhaha
Apple222 Sickly same energy as a rickroll, bit less annoying though in my opinion
New Zealand baby😂😂 yeahhhhh❤️
Problem with t14? It is first Russian tank to get rid of famous Emergency Turret Ejection system xaxaxa
In all seriousness, t14 is actually pretty cool tank.
older soviet MBT: crewmen you have served the motherland well, off to space you go!
A Nice Guy that’s a huge promotion!
From fighting for the motherland on the ground to conquering space for the motherland!
@@utaMAN12345 Going to hunt capitalist satellite for the Motherland xaxaxa)))))
It acualy is not. Autoloader in T-14 still takes rounds from the magazine on the floor under the turret (if loaded), so any hit in it and T-14 turret goes as high as its predecessors :P
@@Weisior yeah but at least on t14 crew sits in armored capsule seperate from ammo carosel so that they will be protected if the turret pops.
Could you please do a video where you describe what you believe a world class tank should be like. It’s doesn’t have to be a existing one but maybe get different parts and put them together
yes would love to hear his Opinion about that :D
One with an energy shield
DeepBlue hahaha
German optics, Gun (130mm), FCS and engine.
Russian ERA, autoloader and APS
American DU Composite armor, multi purpose HE and DU KE round
South Korean KE top attack round
Crewless turret, blow out ammo panels, reduced thermal and radar signature, hybrid drive and a 20mm coaxial cannon.
@@antimatter4733 at this rate that tank is gonna cost more than an F-22.
What really boggles me about the T14 is how the Russians have somehow made a tank with a larger footprint after using design features that’s supposed to make the tank smaller.
If all the crew had fully reclined seats the hull could be lowered.
That's because the hull is just a repurposed object 195 hull from the 90's which was absolutely massive.
The reason for that is that modern FCS and Anti Tank munitions can easily hit tanks no matter the size, according to Zaloga M1A1 tanks knocked out several T-72 tanks from 4km back in 1991 Gulf War, that was 30 years ago, modern FCS have even further advanced, size no longer matters. Another reason why is because they needed space for long APFSDS projectiles, new Vacuum is reported to be ~1m long, so they needed space to fit them inside, as well as provide enough space and comfort for the entire crew to be stationed in the hull. Those are some of the reasons I could think of at the top of my head, there could be more.
Because that "smaller, thus harder to hit" it's true but not a big difference in combat. Situational awareness, ergonomics and those soft characteristics are the ones you need to bet on.
@@RedEffectChannel but wait in 8:10 you say that the turret will be "extreamly hard to hit" so the size wold matter.... No?
The biggest problem of the Armata is that it is more expensive than pulling some old T-55 from storage.
This comment aged well. T-62s with no ERA go BOOM!
This comment aged well. T-54s and 55s have been spotted being moved from RUssia's far east storage facility.
While intended as a joke, it is unironically true. Tanks, in a modern environment are consumable resources, the more expensive they are, the less likely it is to keep the foodchain going. It doesn't matter if it costs 1 Million or 100 Million, all tanks burn the same. Also the reason why no Leopard or Challenger is a game changer when there are hand full of them.
So how many videos were sponsored by War thunder and there still isn't a video of you playing it?
Many athletes are sponsored by McDonald's but you don't see them flipping burgers.
@@uporabn1k But they probably do eat McDonald's
@@matevz532 Not if they wan't to stay sponsored Athletes XD
lol
@@uporabn1k A better comparison would be them actually eating the burgers. I bet everything they dont eat shit from mcdonalds.
This is probably the most electronic-dependent tank currently. In Ukraine, soldiers reported that a good old sight was preferable. Of course when it works, it's a beast. But if it's countered, or disabled, it becomes a sitting duck
When you mentioned the only primary sight for the main gun, all I could think of, as a former tanker, was the location of that sight, being flanked by those vertical plains, would surely create a shot trap for any projectiles; anything like a 50 cal round would piece those les-than-an-inch thick armored doors and destroy the sight behind it. Just my personal observation for what it's worth. Stay safe, all, wherever you are.
Well they would also block any projectile thats not coming from directly ahead
Armata has all around radar, so it will track Javelin. The problem with Armata is size and price. It a big tank which makes for a big target. It's also expensive which means you can't field a lot of them.
Miss fires in tank cannons happen more often than you think and seeing as how this cannon uses 2 part ammo, this is a much bigger problem.
Armata is a platform that can be upgraded for many years in the future.
The old tanks have exhausted the modernization resource, there is no reserve for the future. But today there are enough old tanks, you can take your time with new ones.
Redeffect is the kind of guy who would find problems in the word "No problems"
It’s ironic how the one country that was known for just pure production numbers and creating a wall made with tanks (credit, these tanks were designed to last 3-4 weeks) is also the one country critically struggling with trying to produce enough tanks…
This the most advanced tank they made and cost twice as much as a T-90M
I highly doubt they would not have a way to deal with misfires during battle. If the crew isn't in the turret to clear it and the autoloading system can't deal with it either, the gun would essentially be disabled. A tank with no gun is an armored paperweight. It wouldn't make sense to let that happen.
No tank is perfect, Arjun is the proof, Its trash on tracks 🤣
train*
Please dont say this on a worldwide platform as yt, or else some Rajeesh will be offended to the extend of every single tech support scammer terrorizing you and your female family members for bobs and veganas. Dont you know that the only reason aliens didint contact us yet is because of fear of India being such a superpower by 2025 that they will make alien technology look like some steam powered obsolete shit?
India always shi t
@@slavarodu5062 lol, okay my mistake bro. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@johnhanser2313 Arjun is shit
Not India
Ok I'm getting into patriotic mode
Honestly, a good sniper could take out the camera's since they are so visible
One thing also to note from this video is, no the us also doesn't have billions to just sink in everything in the militairy. Hence they have big boneyard to either keep some vehicles flying or sold off, and the abrams often get rebuild instead of simply replaced.. also the b52 is planned to keep flying until it's over 100 if not longer.. it is somewhat rare for the us to outright replace older vehicles if they can be upgraded..
@@stijnVDA1994yeah but the USA has 12x times Russia military budget and less corruption
@@mbtenjoyer9487they both have the same corruption levels (catastrophic)
IS there any word on what those sight covers can resist? The sight opening looks like a relatively easy target for a sniper, and a bullet through the optics could be a quick mission kill.
Leopard2a6 is still my personal favourite.
I like the Leo2A7AV more becuz it gets armor upgrade a better engine and a 130mm Cannon will be added also it gets a hardkillsystem
On commander view issue :
if the Russians view the T-14 as a sort of “elite spearhead tank”, the T-14 would be in a mixed battalion accompanied by other tanks like T-90M T-80BVM. Hence any shortages in the tank abilities can be (to some extent) covered by the rest of the battalion.
It is just a guess but it seems likely!
That's how it works.
I love red effect. Most channels that discuss tanks only praise them and give positives. Its so refreshing to have a channel that provides the full picture so that I can form a correct opinion for myself.
I get your point, but from what I’ve said I’m guessing you’ve never been in a tank. The reverse gear is one of the most important gears in a tank, you will be looking over the back just as much as you would be facing forward. You move upto a fire position, fire, reverse out of it.
which is what T-14 is also good at (70km/h in reverse)
Prehaps the lack of a backup sight is because they reason that if the turret is hit, knocking out the sights then the rest of the turret will most likely also be ruined in the process meaning that they are effectivly "mission killed" regardless?
Whats with that gunner site, how can it NOT get damaged it's huge lol
It is interesting that the new batch of T90M tanks was sent to the Taman division..this was the first division to receive the T14. One would think that if the Taman Division was going to receive T14 in the near term there would be no logic in supplying T90M.
For "miss fire" Russia will probably use the same mechanism as they use in 2A42 30mm guns. If a miss fire is present there is a charge punching through the case of the round and igniting the powder inside.
Has it been seen anywhere or doing anything to prove that it's the best modern tank?
One of the T14s shortcoming is the thinly armored turret. This coupled with the lack of dual gunner sights could be a problem if the tank were to take a hit to the turret.
the thin turret armor is a great idea for such design tho, as the turret itself were far smaller than it looks and there's no one to protect inside
@@Kalashnikov413 And when it is destroyed the tank can no longer fire. Seems counter productive.
ah yes, the Armata is capable of detecting the top-attack munitions by using its AESA radars, those radars are integrated with the the armata's active and passive defense systems, and, like other AESA, radars, they have the ability to jam radar seekers such as those used on the hellfire, they also operate in a high frequency spectrum, Ka-Band, which further increases their precision and sensitivity, due to this precision, it's also very possible that the radars themselves can be used by the crew to detect targets and identify them without even looking into their cameras, the only other tank to have AESA radars is the Merkava-4 with its trophy APS but they operate on a much lower frequency than the Armata's radars, only S-Band, which only makes them effective defensively to help the APS with its role.
"If its Russian, its good"
Wait till Warthunder slaps Russian bias on this tank
26k destroyed b-26s
Escape hatch underneath...what if they hit a mine
As it stands no new T-14's have been produced since the intial batch of 25+ vehicles in 2014 and the factory hasn't even been tooled up to produce these vehicles yet so as it stands T-90M will take T-14's place since T-90M is going to receive new 2A82M main gun and Afganit APS.
Problem is the commander cannot effectively scan for targets while on the move because the Commander is shaking around inside which makes looking through CITV rather annoying so while on road march commanders usually rely on the old Mk 1 eyeball looking through parascopes or having their hatch in half open configuration where as T-14 cannot do this as effectively like other tanks and previous T-72 style tanks because because T-14 doesn't have 360° field of view from the commanders position and while T-72 doesn't have half open position the large hatch acts as additional armor against small arms fire.
Also the problem is mounting a back up on T-14 is pointless because the point of a backup sight is its meant to be analog so the gunner can use the sight in the event of PSU failure or the primary sight being damaged and is usually slaved to the main gun. Having an extra camera to act as a back up primary sight defeats the purpose of a true analog back up sight.
Never really got the argument about T-14 and its guns survivability. That being well even if the gun is taken out the crew is still fine.
There are so few of these tanks it is not like the crew can just jump into a new T-14. Infact The whole point of a tnak is its gun isnt it? otherwise it is a veryt small APC.
Yes you need ot protect crew and if there was hundreds of these things that would be great but with current numbers it seems you would want it to keep shooting as long as possible.
well jsut a thought anyway.
They wont even biuld enough of them. Their economy is stagnating, ruble is in a weak spot. Yes they may have all these cool designs, blueprints and words about their “new” technologies and machines, but the truth is they cant compete with either americans or the chinese just based on the budget of each military
I think it's just based on training, their tanks are good actually one of the best but their training is just as good as any other any other third world country.
the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank needs to have a manned turret variant . . . a turret roof hatch for observation can be incorporated in the unmanned turret of the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank . . . thus requiring minimum modifications to the inside of the unmanned turret . . . a separate hatch is also needed for gunner, as you rightly mentioned . . . quite a few modifications (big & small) are needed in the T-14M Armata armoured (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP) main battle tank before it goes into battle . . . the T-72BM armoured (STANAG 4569 3A+/3B MRAP) main battle tank (and it's other variants) is otherwise a brilliant piece of offensive hardware . . . only if it was a bit more refined . . .
The biggest disadvantage is that all crew members are aligned together in the hull so if one of them fart they all smell it
That lag on the screen.the enemy could sneak in:))
The Afghanit APS uses radar, including an upward facing module. Top attack munitions are detected and obscurants can be launched automatically.
so, when will T-14 be added to War Thunder?
soon i hope
As much as I know there is no info on armor or other tank characteristics so you cant model it ingame.
A Nice Guy They still have a lot of tanks to add for the USSR tree so not until like 2 years I reckon.
@@SwagmanKFC 2 years? That's insultingly low
Luka Opačak. It’s not a problem for the developers, since war thunder is a very authentic game. It authentically represents developer’s personal whims and bias on how tanks should be.
Where are the Indian trolls who's always correct about these things???
Still trying to find sth good about the Arjun
@tdr you need it too.
@UCGRSjJv2h8S__HwDIyxEfmg bold for you to assume im Pakistani...however I've barely said anything yet and you're already butthurt?
@tdr sorry, corrected it
…India s hit 💩
On the most up to date and MBT tanks there are crucial features that are highly classified and which cant be seen , these can shift balance of superiority either way
Cant wait to have T14 in war thunder
Another fucking game breaker premium
theirish shane the cancer levels will be off the scales
finally the russians will get something modern and dont have to use those dino tanks
All tanks are compromises, and the unmanned turret design brings about some very interesting compromises, while providing interesting advantages.
As you said, the commander cannot get good vision fighting open hatch. He is totally reliant on his cameras. There is indeed no backup sight for the gunner either, but the issues don't stop there. It is impossible for the crew to fix jams, or reload the coaxial machine gun, a frequent requirement in combat. If the autoloader has a malfunction, there is nobody in that part of the tank to attempt to fix it.
I've also noted that a suitably large HE/HESH impact to the turret front could buckle and otherwise jam the hatches, trapping the crew inside, unless the vehicle has an under-floor escape hatch. I have so far not seen if that's the case.
As with all Russian designs, the Armata also sacrifices gun depression for an overall lower profile and maximum frontal armour.
All these compromises seem to have been accepted in return for (theoretically) superior firepower, mobility and survivability than any other MBT. We shall see how it plays out for Russia.
What I found most interesting about this video is that the press was fined for not getting the facts right.
for lying*
Bro, the commander sight is 100% the backup sight of the gunner, and I'm quite sure Uralvagonzavod even said it in an interview to Zvezda channel
Did that Armata advertisement say that the APS can defeat sabot rounds?
"They charged the Чъ Тъ Зъ" :D
Slav speak!
Man, that's clumsy and uncomfortable to say even as a native speaker(which Red is).
Whoever wants to start a war will have to look up this channel first
Write that down Patrick
Slight technical differeces between modern tanks really would not matter too much in the grand scheme of things...
@@damonstr i guess nukes work too
Factory that was supposed to manufacture T14, is not yet even standing, and money dedicated for it, are gone....
That's why T-90M, T-72B3M and T-80BVM are going to be the next generation of Russian MBT's not T-14
Sources please
@@utaMAN12345 www.armadninoviny.cz/14-armata-stale-pokracuje.html
www.armadninoviny.cz/rusky-tank-armata-zastaveni-vyroby.html
www.armadninoviny.cz/ruska-armada-ziska-pouze-16-tanku-t-14-armata.html
use google translate to translate it from Czech.. i really dont wanna access russian web pages, for original articles, i cannot read azbuka :)
@@JaM-R2TR4 the google translation sucks, but thanks mate i'll read it....somehow
RedEffect - I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about the T-14's turret. With the turret having almost no armor it could be hit anywhere on the turret by a HE or even kinetic round and be knocked out. Most people don't realize the force generated by an 120mm + HE round is and if it hits anywhere near the T-14's turret it has a very good chance of either knocking it completely out or disabling some systems. I know you say the turret is small but it doesn't have to even directly hit the center of the turret to knock it out. As someone who has seen many explosions, I think the turret is a big weakness!
Would be interresting to know if the crew capsule can suvivie if a catastrophic explosion in the ammo rack appears after getting hit in the ammo storage.
the ammo and the crew is separated . this is big advantage of this design
Wait thats a touch screen camera thing? Hope its got some other way of using it aswell. Touch screens dont really like dirty oily sweaty fingers😂
I love your videos. I really don't know much about modern tanks but you provided the most unbias view of tanks I have seen. Yes you only pointed out the flaws but you said so in the start of the video.
Also where are you from?
backup sights?
As I recall, on many modern mbt's the commander's CITV can indeed work as a backup sight when the gun is slaved to it. It should be the same on the t14.
It prob has poor accuracy on the move. Though turret is stabilized, the gunner is in the hull and would be bouncing about and would not be able to use the instruments. In other tanks you have all three (commander, gunner, loader) in the stabilized turret instead.
Gun is Stabilize not turret
Avalability isn't a issue with the tank, it's a problem with production, which isn't the tank's fault.
Except it _is_. If a tank is so expensive and so complicated in its design that it cannot be produced in good enough numbers, then it is partly the tank's fault.
That's Russia's problem, that's them not being to afford the tanks.
A little late for April fools, we know Arjun will always be king
Al-Khalid tank > Arjun tank
Also you really didn't mention how Armata fits in with current Russian combat doctrines. To maximize Armata's effectiveness you have to use Western tactics (like maneuver warfare and hit and fade attacks). Russian tactics based on Chechnya and Syria seem to still rely on brute force and horde tactics. Plus there is a question of the training of Russian Tank crews. The T-90 seem to be a better fit as you can use them as a blunt instrument.
Armata T-14 is not purposed for the tank mission, it is an AT it keeps the distance and engages targets from afar avoiding close combat situations.
In your intro ad for War Thunder you say there are vehicles from the 30's to the 90's, but we actually have more modern vehicles than that. Even the AH-1Z from like 5 patches ago is from 2010.
How many times did war thunder sponsor redeffect videos
I'm sure the commanders sight is set up to function as a backup gunners sight
The entire tank is a problem.😂😂😂😂😂😂 The West knows 😂😂😂😂
Sure...
These don't seem like serious problems so much as minor tradeoffs of the design...and things the designers were surely aware of, like the possibility of misfires without a loader (uncommon? Sure. But Russian ammunition is known to be unreliable AFAIK).
"Not enough of them" also seems like a minor problem when the tank is already cheaper than say, an Abrams. The biggest military rival to Russia is the US, and "it's too expensive and we can't actually build them" describes almost every modern weapon we seem to be designing.
I think, most of the problems can be solved or are solved since last year. Only real problem is the slow production (not enough money?).
There is a excellent quora post on the issues of T-14 and unmanned turrets in general. It is more than likely at this point that the performances of T-14 are simply too awful that even the test requirements can't be met. Do notice that up to this point, 6 years after the Victory Parade debut, there still hasn't been a single footage showing the T-14 gun's vertical stabilization.
No problem in these tanks. Russians knows how to make best weapons in limited resources. There are still problems in m1 a1 tanks like turbine engine high heat signature expensive rubber stud tracks. Problems in desert. All world copies Russian technology in space in aircrafts in ships. You all know very well. T 14 is innovative product after 90 years.
The m1 doesn't have rubber tracks . Some newer modifications are experimenting with but it isn't going to be just like any other rubber it would made stronger chemically. The main reason for those is noise . Rubber tracks would be quite . Also russia doesn't have limited resources . It has a lot of recourses
i wonder the reason they havent requipt their tank regts because its too a) too expensive
b) not good enough
c) a+b = bring back t62 +t34
Low money and corruption is Russia biggest problem rn
Blue Effect? More like Stupid Effect!!! #rekt 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
Ok in curiosity is there any way for an infantryman to hypothetically take out a T14 short of setting off a nuke beneath it?
Hypothetically yes, if an infantryman were to fire enough RPGs at T 14 to use up all of it's APS shots, then they'd eventually get through. Probably not the hull, but the turret at least. But the chance of being able to fire that many rockets at T 14 without being killed either by the tank itself or it's supporting tanks/infantry are next to zero.
of course there is, no tank is indestructible, the best option for an infantryman to take T-14 out is top attack missile if available, if not a good hit on the turret would mission killed it at least
No, glorious tank would be launched to space and claim mars for the motherland
Once there was a country that made the best tanks and the first jet fighters. But they could only make a handful compared to the cheaper tanks it’s enemies could make. One can make a tank that is three times better then all other tanks but if they can make tanks six times faster then you that’s a PROBLEM.
“Historically Accurate” laughs in gayjin
I put my money on German tanks💁🏿♀️
Overrated trash.
@@I_Cunt_Spell german and usa tanks are so far ahead everything else. Keep crying commie trash
@@Feanor916
Yeah, kraut tanks are very good as pressure cookers in Syria, whilst united states of aipac tanks are good in action movies. Keep crying, tel aviv's drone.
I dont think you know what a good tank is, though old models they still excel in there role.
@Wulfheort The I cunt spell guy.
your videos are very good and don't have a lot of flaws but there is one thing i need to point out your shell
penetration information is outdated and inaccurate for example Svinets has a length of about 660mm and it's a whole projectile and not just a penetrator using
apfsds caulculator of willi odermatt.you get a lot less penetration the same problem is with dm53 shells but for some we do not know the full length, so for them I cannot claim to be incorrect .
These are one of the few remarks with your videos but all in all good videos just keep going
Who's going to eyeball the backup sight? No-one's in the turret! I think they would just surrender...
Id like to say that this is more of an... uparmored, less mobile, tracked tank destroyer platform.
Its not made for tank vs tank combat. which yes, isnt going to be a thing really, but its always a possibility. meaning this vehicle has to be run off the front line and more as support fire from a distance. like the US M1128 MGS.
that T14 looks spacious, for a tank at least, now Vadim could be comfortable
Manipulating that camera view was _painful_ to watch.
The visibility is awful on this thing.
And that's before snipers start picking off the commanders and gunners site.
What do you think should norway buy m1a2 abrams tank or leopard 2a7 or k2 black Panther that are the 3 options norway say they are lokking at
The warranty is awful.
Its very conventional . . . f.e.: no ETC cannon, no composit barrel support, no hybrid drivetrain and no plate capacitor armor considering that this would be a technology usable in road vehicles.
But its good for gaining experience with modern electronics etc. and I think thats its main purpose.
Cost of maintenance and up keep will be a high cost, I imagine.
Miho nishizumi had her crew drift a tank and people said it couldnt happen... even THIS tank can drift vs her panzer 4. Nuff said............
Also PANZER VOR!!!!!
I thought that for an mbt to be a mbt you had to have at least enough to fight one battle.
being the "turret" so small in case of hits, even the backup sight would be damaged
I can only imagine what Russia would be capable of doing if it had a budget of 700 billion.
Not a valid comparison because Russia uses a different basis for its defense industry. The fact that the government controls more of production and design means that costs vary wildly from Western nations which employ civilian companies for design and manufacturing.
4:34 ackchually, t14 has an active protection system that can detect projectiles via radar or 360 degree IR+UV cameras (that's their whole point, observation is just a bonus)
Update, there is now i believe 100 t-14? Or around 100 from what I found
There are currently 15 existing Tanks of that type
Its just platform (base) , and in time , theres gonna be upgrade, and its normal. Point of this unique platform is crewless turret . Very good protection ( at least russians says ??). Russia dont have no more crew mambers for change. Tank is just a tool and crew is more important nowdays than metal.
So .... you don't know a lot of things , but you think it should be mentioned .... very informative !
Only words.
We need facts, and the fact is that we can't know anything about problems because this tank never reach battle.
Comparing a paper T-14 tank to any existing is like comparing child's super car drawing with real super car.
50 are in service, a paper tank is the P1000, T 14 is pretty real
@@wonkagaming8750
Like Yeti - no one saw them.
Red effect thanks for the video, can you do please Type 99 tank issues very much appreciated.
There are more problems than what are apparent. The escape hatch in the bottom would only serve as a soft spot for explosive devices, such as those seen in use in Southwest Asia. Situational awareness is poor in the T-14. You can say "Well they can use the cameras" ...but lets be real about one thing. Russia is notorious for being unable to keep up with expensive and complex systems. All it takes are for a display to go out, and the TC is relatively blind. While I agree that a narrow gun pod is nice, while in defilade it won't save you on the offense. Sorry. While there is apparent technological advantage, it has some very flawed concepts that date back to cold war doctrine which is not how much of the world fights these days.
that's simple, the turret is just like IS, The hull is like t29
how is K2 Black Panther i know some armor datas are still secret
Those are low light cameras, that's why they appear to be black and white.
The worse thing about the T14 is the Limited numher of production of the Tank.
The problem with this tank, is that it isn't the Bob Semple
While I agree with the idea that a smaller turret is more difficult to hit and every tank's gun mantlet is a weakspot. Having a low level of protection on the turret still opens the tank up to a greater likelihood of a firepower kill by other munitions. If anyone knows russia's armor doctrine is or why they made this design decision that'd be helpful.