I know your using published (official) numbers but I know for a fact that the Abrams can go much faster than the stated speed limit. I can assume much the same for the others. Although it has a different style engine. I know a tanker who swears he was going 80mph in one and he was still accelerating. I also understand that yes your more likely to blow a track doing that speed.
This comment makes me think of the British officer speaking to a soldier: Officer: I did not see you at camouflage parade this morning. Soldier: Thank you sir.
@@mawdeeps7691 What series? I found one example, which may or may not have been part of a towing demonstration. The tank was able to leave the scene under its own power afterwards.
@@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia672 well he is a military enthusiast and was in British army driving IFV or tank, or both (can't remember) and today belongs to Canadian artillery corps/army/brigade (don't know exactly how to call it). He also have youtube channel dedicated to military stuff (sometimes non military video also).
@12JK4FFG yes. I'm not trying to make Russia look good. Also if it's the incident I'm thinking of it was a parade rehearsal that it got stuck. My source is a Task & Purpose video.
A former German tank designer interviewed on the channel of Panzermuseum Munster said that the idea of unmanned turrets was well researched, but western engineers never liked it much (outside a few ill-fated attempts like the concepts leading up to the M60 Starship). It had too many practical issues for simple things, like no longer having the option to stick your head out of the turret to look at something that's at a bad angle for a camera. The designer also emphasised that Armata's size is now much more comparable to western tanks than the former Soviet designs.
@@alexburke1899 It's the same old story. The Russians crow about their new being more advanced than their Western counterpart. Then they can only afford to produce 4 or 5 of them, same as our military industrial complex's technology demonstrators.
I guess you'll see a lot of them on any future battlefield in which they are used. You'll be able to easily locate them from the long columns of smoke and the fires from fuel and ammo cookoff.
@@Brian-px9gu compared to US' military perhaps. No European army unfo will be able to combat the Russians for now (at least until Germany finishes it's 100B euro upgrade next year).
Russia initially embarked on a massive program to equip its forces with this tank but never got beyond the production of a few prototype tanks and then changed its tune, saying that its current tanks were competitive with NATO tanks and that it would just modernize its existing tanks. This is strikingly similar to the hype about the Su-57 and then Russia's backtracking that the Su-35 was good enough for its defense needs but then has come out now saying that its going to develop its latest and greatest Su-75. I think what we are seeing with this country is an attempt to create halo weapon systems with which to dazzle unwary potential arms customers in the international market. We've seen its overhyped and underperforming missile defense systems that get defeated by Western technology when operated by Russia's customers. Russia is like an international used car salesman, let the buyer beware.
Main problem with all the new systems is that Russia, while a huge country, has an economy on par with say, Spain in size. They have the skill and tech to put them together, but then the money bags are empty so back to the old stuff... again.
I live in California. Even our economy is bigger than Russia. If we were a nation, we would be have the sixth largest economy in the world. Ironically, the video showed a large number of T-72. The tank that Russia can really afford. They are even putting a large number of more advanced T-80 and T-90 in storage. Only the armored units in the Western Military District facing NATO have all T-80 and T-90. All other armored units in the rest of Russia are mostly upgraded T-72, ex. T-72B3.
@@mexicangovernment2305 I wouldn't say "resorted". The allies used a weapon system the DID rule the battlefield and waves of the future. By the time of WWII, Battleships were relics of a bygone era. Today, manned tanks are relics.
Hey now, that's not fair to the Yamato. Yamato was at least in full service and actually saw action (and even did critical damage to an escort carrier from very long range). The Armata is basically just a pathetic propaganda prop at this point.
The answer is no for three reasons. Reason 1: the Russian military can't afford to buy very many of them, so it's highly unlikely that they'd play a decisive role. Reason 2: the Russian military has clearly demonstrated that they do not understand armored or aerial combat in the least and, as such, any vehicle they deploy is going to be significantly less effective. Reason 3: the Armata has very good crew safety, but it's even more prone to a mission kill by shooting the turret than even older Soviet tanks or NATO tanks.
Bro then why don't u just invade russia? If it's so weak !! Russian military may not have good logistics in ukraine but it has an excellent Domestic logitics/
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 what Russia has is massive stocks of equipment and supplues, numbers and a primive barbarity willing to cause massive loss of life and infrastructure.Russia should be given a big taste of its own medicine by bombardment of its military bases , ships, rail communications, fuel terminals and hubs all the way to Moscow.
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 hmm maybe because russia has nukes? Tho probably 90% of them wont even work because it costs shit ton of money to maintain but still has nukes
They have tech probably more advance than Nato by now cuz nato almost abolished all military due to peace and no needed intervetionsm althoug Russia has problems with mass producing stuff if they do they will overtrun power to their side
@Skawei oi, russian bot, looks like you really don't know much about anti tank ammunitions. You can destroy any kind of tank in a single hit, the thing is where you hit it and how strong the projectile is
Gaius Wyrden I can only imagine what American heavy drones will do to Russian military equipment (Predator C1, MQ reaper 9, 25, X47, etc), I think the world saw the ineffectiveness of Russian anti aircraft weapons in 2020 ( Syria, Libya and now Azerbaijan) a 50k drone missile destroys 115 million S300 or 13 million Pantsir S1
@@alfreddupont1214 they can afford it, but corruption and its stupid arms industry, and i mean state owned companies, they were proven to be less effective and cause more problems
@@mochiii608 considering their economic health? Not really. The Saudis have done a lot of damage, the result of US fracking technology leaving the kingdom very uncomfortable about their sole major export. Russia unfortunately is left in the blast radius. You are right about state owned arms industries though, bureaucracies and efficiency don't go together.
Honestly its hard to feel threatened by this tank when they cant produce enough of them to even equip a brigade. Tbh i think its going to take them at least 10 years to make it in large enough numbers for it to be their mbt and by that time its going to be obsolete.
It's possible the T-14 is just an example of what Russia usually does. Take a concept, like an unmanned turret, and push it as far as it can possibly go, then pare it down to something practical. What that would mean is that the Armata family is going to be used as a platform from which Russia will build a more practical tank with things like an unmanned turret and a hard kill APS
@@filmandfirearms I agree. Create the ultimate tank then make it affordable through sacrificing some design elements, all the while dovetailing it’s capabilities with your overall doctrine. It is the ultimate armor fighting vehicle.
@@philipgates988 no. This is a common myth. American troops carried bazookas and would often either wait for the panzer to stop or they would ambush the panzer from the sides. The panzer was also not feared by the Sherman as it was able to easily outmaneuver the panzer and hit it from the side since the panzer's only 2 strengths are heavy frontal armor and a big gun. Everything else about the tank is a result of being hyped up by Wehraboos and hollywood movies, and in reality is actually completely garbage.
@Ozymandias Nullifidian Well that's hardly true. Russia has only owned Crimea since 1783. That's a shorter time than the U.S has existed. The fact that Russia has decided to "Take back" Crimea is simple politics. Sevastopol has a massive warm water port, something Russia has always desired. So to get this warm water port they wrongfully invaded an independent country. Russia is in the wrong here. And always will be.
7 months later: Russia being routed, bringing back T62s from half a century ago, throwing untrained old men into trenches with a single magazine... Yeah they're fucked.
@@apple222sickly what happens when Turkey equips its drones with air to air missiles to shoot down fighter jets?Because that's exactly what Turkey is planning to do.
@@esashaik7083 yes tgey will put stingers on the ucavs bayractar and ankici but always the fighters will have an edge on uavs because of the stronger radars
Red Effect did a way better job of analyzing the T-14s capabilities. He goes into the power train and agility a lot more and takes into account future upgradeability. Binkov sounds like he's guessing on most values. I'd take a middle path between the two for parsimony's sake.
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 Binkov keep making mistake on the T-90M, its true that gunner has a 2nd Gen thermal viewer, but he failed to mention that commander has a 3rd Gen, and by this simple and slight mistake he then erroneously conclude that T-14 (which has 3rd Gen thermal viewer for both gunner and commander mind you) has an inferior targeting system.....what? If you think that's propaganda and T-90M don't have 3rd Gen for the commander you should know that T-90M uses a French made (and latter licensed built) Thales thermal viewer.
Armata has a massive problem. The Javelin mk2 missile. All those sensors on the turret would be taken out, leaving the crew blind. The active defense systems won't be able to stop the Javelins top-down attack.
@@mabotyin dude there is no armata tanks in Ukraine, Russia sent old t-72 and few dozen t90 (main battle tank of Russia) which are entering just now in 2nd and 3rd convoys. Don't eat up USA propaganda so easily, truth is in the middle
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Western media hasn't specified which vairiants have been fielded. Also, western media is independent from the government, and therefore isn't propaganda. Our media happily critisizes the government. I wonder if that is the case in Russia? 🤣🤣
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Also hardly any Armartas have been produced by now (and lets face it, Russia ain't got the cash to make any more!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
@George Fenrirbitadze because there aren't enough of them and they probably dont work as well as advertised.. Same with su 57s. Russia's modern military is YT propaganda. Stingers and javelins are wrecking their armor. They can't even keep their gas tanks full during an invasion. Imagine believing they're going to field modern battle tanks en masse.
Given that the US has already gotten detailed information about the Armata and has developed ammunition that is able to penetrate the Armata's armor, and that the tank rounds for NATO are largely standardized (UK has to be an oddball), I'd say no, it won't rule future battlefields. Add to it that Russia cannot produce enough of them to replace combat losses in the event of a major war and it gets worse. Edit: Alright people, after MONTHS of this comment being up I finally noticed enough to say: UK No longer an oddball and has a smoothbore like all the other cool kids. Armata's even MORE fucked than it was before.
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor proof? i doubt the russians would risk their prized new tank when they only have a handful and they're likely to be stolen by some ukrainian farmers and dragged off to poland where NATO would be happy to provide disassembly service.
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor did i say anything as stupid as fake news? i just wanted sources because i've been following the war pretty closely and i haven't seen anything about T-14s in battle. and hearing rumors is a long way from a firm confirmation, esp. if they haven't captured any, even from reliable sources.
@@giovanni-ed7zq as true as that is, the US has been trying to shift away from DU since it's otherworldly amounts of expensive and using it is *technically* a war crime
23:50 "It's cost seems to be precluding its production in very high numbers." If you think that was a problem before Feb 2022, it's going to become an even bigger problem going forward. Tell me, can they build this without western microprocessors? China doesn't make microprocessors, you know. And I'm not sure it will be a good idea to load the Russian military with Chinese electronics. Every system will have excellent back doors you never find until China decides to turn off the entire Russian military.
I was thinking the same thing. Russia has only produced about 20 T-14s to date. And given the financial and technological sanctions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they may not be able to produce very many, if any, for the next decade. Meanwhile Russia's actions will have boosted NATOs military spending by another 1% of GDP or so for the next decade. And since NATOs GDP is much higher than Russia's (and will be relatively less affected by the war and sanctions) the existing spending disparity (NATO spent 12x more than Russia in 2016, so will probably outspend Russia by 20x-25x each year for the next decade) will only increase. Looks like Putin's war will trigger a repeat of how Reagan's military spending v. USSR essentially bankrupted the USSR at the end of the cold war.
@@wealthelife everyone nows first 100 hours of air campaign if war starts. so that t-14 wont survive the air campaign. i think the idea of tank warefare and long lines of ground troops is obsolete idea now. you do that against american airforce, highway of death 2.
@@giovanni-ed7zq There's a difference between taking ground and keeping it - tanks are for the second-wave once the air-battle's been won to comb out any remaining hostile forces with less losses than you would get with pure infantry. Or, they should be at least *looks at Russia...* As for defence, a tank is significantly easier to hide than a jet (which normally needs an airstrip+hangars+all the equpiment needed to re-arm, repair and refuel it) - as all you need to do is drive to a position with a decent view and some foiliage, throw a camo net and drape some shrubbery over it - wait a week or so when the airstrikes have died down and the enemy convoys are coming in and then clean off and jump into the tank, fire off a few HE shells to decimate an incoming enemy convoy at many times the range of standard infantry anti-tank weapons - then relocate (while being entirely safe from any small-scale retaliation), cover up the tank and take cover in the 10 or so minutes it'll probably take for the enemy to scramble an airstrike. Also, don't forget that active defence systems exist and can be mounted on tanks now - so it'll take a lot more than a single missile to kill a modern western tank. Throw in the fact that countries like Germany have developed armour which can emulate different heat signitures to throw off enemy targeting/identification and they're far from irrelevent - they just have a lesser role now within combined arms doctrine than they did in previous conflicts.
@@giovanni-ed7zq Not many countries can perform that sort of air dominance. Even for the USAF, which considers it a specialty of theirs, it's something that takes immense planning and concentration of resources and is even then only possible due to being a truly world class force.
The Armata won't be standard with the Guards Motorized rifle regiments/tank regiments until the late 2020s-2035. I'd say by 2035. They would have to phase out all the t-90s, 72BMs, and whatever 80Us they have left to make room.
They don't have to phase them out at all, they'll supply them on the cheap to Syria, Armenia, Iran, Egypt to further push their influence there without direct involvement.
@Antoine Lachapelle They could export them but they would be in service with other countries even if those countries are in Russia's sphere of influence. Or the Russians would supply the leftover vehicles to the reservists or Cat B formations if those still exist (Cat B and C formations did during Soviet times).
In Desert Storm Americans proved that ground army is a sitting duck without Air Superiority. As long as T-14 enjoys safe from air strike battleground then yeah why not.
You’re still buying into the brochure as if all these systems work flawlessly. In such a corrupt culture as modern Russia, problems with complex systems are hidden or downplayed so that everyone can report a positive result to their immediate superior. The design is impressive at arm’s length but the reality is that most Russian weapons are the products of cutting corners. Then consider who crews these tanks? the quality of Russian forces has been catastrophically overestimated against the obvious facts that they are very poorly paid and training is obviously deficient. If the T14 goes into battle as poorly protected by infantry as the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine, they’ll be handled in the popular manner.
Technical documentation on stealth technology was recieved from Russia in 1990-s. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev the Russians decided that stealth technology is a dead end and therefore did not develop these technologies
F-35 technology was bought from Soviet Union. It's Stealth design + formula and the vertical engine. So stop acting like F-35 is the last word in technology Russia had the technology 40 years before the F-35 was introduced LMAO. + F-35 will be absoloute against Russian air defence systems S-400 or S-500. Russia isn't Iraq or Afghanistan my friend.
@@natureblank1401 A gép gyártását 1978-ban kapta meg a Lockheed modern programokkal foglalkozó részlege, a kaliforniai Burbank-ben székelő Skunk Works. Az első gép 1981-ben szállt fel a Skunk Works 51-es körzet néven elhíresült Groom Lake bázisáról, alig 31 hónappal azután, hogy meghozták a sorozatgyártási döntést. Az első F-117A-t 1982-ben szállították le, a gépet 1983-ban állították hadrendbe és az utolsó Nighthawkot 1990-ben készítették el. A légierő 1988-ig tagadta a gép létezését, majd 1990 áprilisában egy F-117A-t kiállítottak a nevadai Nellis légibázison, ahova több tízezer látogatót vonzott. :P russia 1978 : moszkvics zaporozsec xD
@@Likeaworm Robert is correct. Even the M1A1 was proof against a hard kill from an A10. Immobilize it yes (which in modern battle means it will become a hard kill). I knew the head design engineer at Chrysler Defense who designed the M1 gun system (who worked for my father before changing companies) as well as the engineer who designed the gau gun drive (my father). It was actually something considered as part of the design and something discussed during the armor tests. Oh and his top speed number for the M1 is way off and low and I assume its off for the others.
@A TV A-10 is a nice stationary target for the Pantsir, BUK-M3, TOR-M2U, S-300, S-350, S-400 and so on. Have a nice day. They can send A-10 to heLL, with just a simple click of a button.
The A-10 is fairly niche in the modern battlefield, as it is relatively slow and lacks stealth. It's main advantages are cost per mission/hour and ability to stay in an area for a long time (loiter time). It's great for asymmetrical warfare. However, anywhere that expensive modern assets like the T-14 are deployed would also likely have AA support sufficient to deter it. A more likely aerial threat would be smart bombs dropped from high altitude, for example, from an F35.
“The T-14 is using one generation newer reactive armor plates than those on the T-90” okay so the T-72’s had cardboard and garbage in the reactive panels. The T-90’s had blocks of old rubber. What comes after old rubber in the development tree? Plywood?
NATO tank: exist in operation T14: does not exist in operation So this is not even a competition. T14 is a nice concept on paper, but Russia does not have the financial power to go from concept to operational use
I like these arguments when people say the SU-57 is better than XXXX or the T-14 is better than XXXX. Even if that's true it doesn't matter since both of those examples have serious issues that are delaying them from being built in any significant number. The Me 262 was well beyond the capabilities of aircraft during it's time. It didn't matter because there were just too few of them. The bigger hypothetical isn't if the T-14 is better than it's contemporaries. It's if they can even build them lol.
@@Schnittertm1 T-90 and T-72 use Nera plates of steel and rubber. Some Steel plates are improved whit other materials. T-80 uses Steel, high arden steel and Polimer/ceramic whit pockets.
The last I heard the Russians can't afford to produce the T14,they were going to acquire only 20 copies of each variant,tank,BMP,Wrecker,bridge layer,and command and control vehicle, for a total of 100...
They have 10 T 14s, just 10. Three are prototypes. They were supposed to have 100 the first year. If people haven't been paying attention, tanks are no longer the weapons they were. Drones are the weapons that will win battles.
Drones didn’t win the Afghanistan War Jokes aside, the T-14 suffers the problems of the Tiger 2, although we might never see how great they are fully, they were so lowly produced that 100 tanks on each front won’t help, maybe win a Skirmish but the war is lost just due to mobility alone
Some Russian official is probably now sitting somewhere in an hidden office, his face burried in his hands as Binkov here is so expertly revealing all the aspects of their new tank.
Not really. Binkov is hugely biased towards NATO in all videos when it touches the tech and quality of equipment. So his very slight and inconfident approval of T-14 actually speaks that even he couldn't disagree at how good that tank is, even though he would love to critisize it as much as possible.
I know all the sensors are protected but, are they protected enough to still work right after being hit by a high explosive round on the outside? If i was in an inferior tank and i knew my "AP" rounds probably weren't going to pen, I might try blinding the tank by damaging its sensors with HE.
I wouldn't count on them ruling any battlefield when military tech has sort of evolved away from the traditional battlefield and either moved towards American-style air superiority or low-tech terrorists tactics. A tank is great to have as support once you've got a position you want to hold onto, but in reality you shouldn't expect to see much tank on tank fighting any more... unless Russia and China decide to have a go at each other.
In a short war or a war where enemy air defense's aren't a factor that makes sense. After two years of attrition you can count on America slowly running out air assets and having to be more careful, that doesnt factor in what happens when they can't establish air dominance to begin with.
@@TGBurgerGaming The USAF is 12,000 planes overall with 100 f-35's coming off the line every year in peace time which would increase in war. China+russia have less planes than us believe me you don't base your military stratagy around air power unless you're REALLY wanting to dominate
@@anguswaterhouse9255 have you seen the simulations for modern air wars? Guided missiles reduce the survival rate to around 3% for pilots regardless of which side you're on. You can expect expensive planes to be used sparingly soon after the first few engagements and replacements to be cheaper and easier to mass produce, only less advanced. There's no way the US establishing air dominance over the South China sea let alone the mainland with any kind of ease. Most simulations show entire carrier groups being lost. Russia would be a similar problem with the added issue of geography. You can't send enough planes to dominate an area that big.
@@TGBurgerGaming no one said it be easy but it be done, the us and it's allies have absolute air superiority, they would see heavy losses but would in the end completely or near completely control the skies. These situations aren't good arguments as they are usually unfair and stacked against the us forces and unrealistic as that's the whole point of it.
@@TGBurgerGaming If these simulations were created by American or Eastern Bloc nations, then you probably shouldn't trust it. For propaganda purposes the Russian and Chinese military liked to hype up their military. The American military on the other hand like to make their own military look weak to ask for more funding from Congress.
It is always misleading to compare one isolated weapon with another isolated weapon. All weapons operate within a tactical system of combined arms, command, control, communication and intelligence. All of this has to be considered when comparing one MILITARY and how it operates against another.
The only advantages the Russian tanks had to offer were that they were simple, they were reliable, and they could be made in numbers. T-14 is complicated, expensive, will require a massive investment in training, and they'll never field a full division. It's a paper tank. In perfect conditions without dust and dirt, that tank is going to look pretty good. In the field, I doubt they'll be able to maintain them for any length of time. They made the classic mistake of building a weapon to fight the last war.
déjà vu ... same thing was said about Su-57 for years. "not even 5G", "Over rated" "as stealthy as an elefant in the savanna" and then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters the criticism became "they cant use it" "too sophisticated" "too expensive to purchase" and when the contract for Su-57 was signed and manufacturng began they switched on to the T-14 ... Guys Chill, why are you even talking about costs and performance when the tank is still changing ... it did not pass tests yet, Chill boys XD
@@tunisiandom9318 buahahahaha, must be really difficult to even say, what you just did. Russian military equipment is the same as anything Russian. All crap.
@@tunisiandom9318 > then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters When did that happen? Can you share a link or something? I've never heard of anyone saying that.
@@Rssika how many T14 are in the russian Army and how many get the Army in the future? compare it to number of all T72 Types like the T90(T-72BU) T-72B3.... the T14/T15 are to expensive, a total of 132 T14/T15 is not a lot
Interesting to see, that especially the newer Gen (at least NATO, don't know for Russia) autocannons are more and more optimized to be able to mission kill the optics of battle tanks, something that was considered in the development of Puma's weaponry and the related precision - if you can't penetrate them that easy anymore, first overfeed hardkill, then destroy sensors, day over.
Good God. NOT ONE of these tanks are in service, and the production run of 2300 has been reduced to 100. TOTAL. That's twenty minutes of work for a single A-10.
The North Korean Pok Pung Ho MK3 with cold nuclear fusion power reactor for propulsion is also excellent! Its the only Nuclear Fusion powered land vehicle!
@@jc.1191 its not my country but northkorea switches over to infrared light to prevent imperialist air raid attacks or drone survey. Everyone in North Korea ownes nightvision glasses.
@@Schlipperschlopper Paid troll, you have transparent arguments. We have satellite and gps data, we know where you are at. We also can see infrared and radar frequencies. You aren't scientifically educated are you? Maybe try that, good use of your time.
@@jc.1191 You that North Korea has the best peoplespizza, hamburgers and spaghetti? North Korea rules the world!!!! North Korea also makes the best Shisha tobacco, cigars and whisky! Dont miss their superb soy sauce and kimchi!
The number naming it's kind of weird if you didn't figure out why. T-34 - 1934 T-55 - 1955 T-72 - 1972 T-80 - 1980 T-90 - 1990 T-14 - 2014 You get the point or i was wrong?
Having none of your offensive weaponry protected by some sort of armour has to have a lot of draw backs... Yes the crew is protected, but if your gun can be completely destroyed by a 25mm bushmaster it doesn’t matter how protected your crew is you may as well not even shown up... not to mention the crazy complex repairs that would be needed...
What crazy complex repair, its easy, change the Turret ! And dont underestimate the russian industry in case of War they will produce war material in all parts of their "empire" its a big country, dont make the same mistake like the germans in WW" and underestimate the russians
@@Sturminfantrist when did I even talk about the Russian industry or even attack/underestimate them... I simply comment on the massive drawback at having no armour on the turret.. Its Complex because you cannot do in on the roadside.. you will need a heavy crane not to mention logistics to get the million dollar turret to the location of repair.... without damage... if your primary way of fixing the turret is just swapping it out thats fine... but someone.. at some point just going to have to fix the turret...
@@dakkadakka4236 i think its used so the round can penetrate intact before doing too much damage (less shrapnel damage) because most of tank combat casualties are caused by either dead crew or ammo rack blow up.
@@yorle6527 nah, I wouldn't think so as the crew are in their own armoured pod.. so even if the ammo does go up the crew are still safe... It just doesn't make sense to me.. yeah sure no crew are in the turret to be protected... but if you don't have the thing in the turret protected. That thing in the turret being your only form of attack, and it takes a hit it will be damaged and most likely unable to continue fighting in that battle.. where as any nato tank turret takes a hit there is a chance that it will be still be able to fight on..
@@dakkadakka4236 i think the turret is made weak by design, so if an APFSDS hit the turret it will penetrate and go out the other way without causing too much damage. The turret isnt weak in all sides the important parts like the mantlet have a decent armor protection
This is no doubt a top of the line great tank. Interesting to see the Russians scrapping their old doctrine of quantity over quality in favour of better units lately.
@@ravenknight4876 Russia has barely ever been one of the most populous countries. Even in 1930s Soviet population was 160 million of which only about 110-120 was actual, Russians. That would put them on par with Americans. And sunce ww2 it has only been downhill for Russia and rest of Europe compared to the rest of the world.
Russia's new military doctrine is neither quality nor quantity. Its, "what can we drag out of storage to make people think we've got a functioning procurement program..."
@@SuperLusername the fact that the soviets in ww2 were able to throw away so many lives proves and still have divisions of tanks and infantry streaming towards Germany proves you wrong.
tanks only fear of air attack, no matter how advanced it is !!! Take an example in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict tanks are like target practice for drones even the Armenia and Karabakh has air defence system.
Yeah. This hasn't come to fruition much since most conflicts since the collapse of the USSR has been against smaller countries or unconventional units who lack the funding for good air support. In a conventional war against better funded armies, I could see MANPADs being mounted onto existing armored vehicles to protect against air attack. A .50 wont cut it today as any aerial threats to armor are too far, too fast, or too armored for an M2 or NSV(even a RWS equipped one) to be a real threat.
We know that this thing on the back of the turret is ammo storage, but how exactly you load this backup ammo to autoloader? Or any ammo at all? There is no hatch to get in turret, and pictures shows that there is no entrance to turret at all, because electronics is behind gun bridge so you have literally a small plate to open to "peak into cables" and that's about it.
So in conclusion, the only way to see if the T-14 is going to be combat effective is to have the crew train in tactics then put the T-14 into combat to get real time information to get upgrades or advancements in tactics with the T-14 crews input!
@@burnttoaster6313 1 They are too heavy to moved to a conflict zone quickly and in large numbers 2 They absorb a huge amount of resources to keep them operating in combat. An Abrams needs like 6 gallons of fuel PER MILE 3 They have become extremely vulnerable to the latest drones and air launched anti tank weapons
@@TheCerebralDude Modern remote weapon stations have equally as good sensors and fire control as the main gun. It can make short work of tiny drones in anti-air role. Not to mention increasing use of jammers onboard tanks as soft kill. Not just against missiles, but IEDs and suicide drones. Also something isn't obsolete unless 1) something does its job better, or 2) it is rendered incapable of fulfilling its role. Neither of these criteria have been met. Nothing does what a tank does better than a tank. Nor are the current anti-tank weapons sufficient at stopping a tank force from doing its job effectively. Syrian tanks are not modern and is a whole generation and possible 2 behind the developed world. There wasn't small suicide drones in the 70s. Syrian tanks don't have the current generation of fire control computers for their main gun. Let alone remote weapon stations. Of course they will do poorly.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 1 Something does do it’s job better, attack helicopters. They are far easier to move in force to far away war zone they are faster can return to support bases to refuel and rearm; and can match tanks in firepower I
@@super_slav_6183 Says who? No country in the world has access to british armour so no one in the world can test to see how effective or ineffective their weapons would be. And as the armour is uniquely different from any other armour in the world you cannot make a comparative test.
A limited 1st world military with a 3rd world economy equates to the T-14 being another "wonder weapon" that dictators love so much. No matter how effective they are they would be quickly eleminated due to overwhelming numbers of comparable tanks and anti-armor assets and lack of depth in their logistics chain. But what's important is future Binkov videos. Might I suggest Papua New Guinea canaballistic head hunters versus the current US House of Representatives. I would love to see the aftermath.
Russia is far ahead of a 3rd world economy. Not saying they equal the west however they aren't as far back as the former USSR was. Also for my 2 cents long term good/great relationships with Russia is far more likely than with China. Now while it would be fun watching headhunters going after congress (both houses actually) they would have to be warned that eating a congress critter most probably would cause at least food poisoning if not outright death as tainted as they are.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Russian economy potential is much worse then of USSR and you probably thinking about late soviet history but Russia today could not match to CCCP from like 60s. And btw Russian economy is going more and more to shit while they problem internal rises and they have many of them. And its kinda funny but for average citizin even Belarus have higher standard of living not to mention ex soviet republic or most ex eastern block countries
Some truth in this but I don't know where the overwhelming numbers of enemy tanks are coming from. NATO has greatly slashed it tank numbers, Armoured divisions are very expensive to maintain in peace time, though Poland has greatly increased them. There is even now a bizarre debate about abolishing the tank. The main NATO advantage is going to be in the air as the US can fly in almost any number of its huge reserve of aircraft within days, as long as the ground facilities are still usable. However NATO has some similar problems to that of the Germans in going to war against Russia in WW2. NATO equipment is highly engineered according to the doctrine of tactical superiority, win the battle and you win the war. This did not work out for Germany because of the prolonged nature of the conflict. NATO too has very limited stocks of ammunition which is vastly expensive to produce and it would be long and costly to also replace losses in materiel and men. In the short-term Russia has an advantage because it takes time for NATO to bring US heavy division across the Atlantic, but this advantage will quickly diminish as US airpower builds up. In the middle-term NATO has a strong advantage once it can bring its full ground forces and air power to bear. If however NATO cannot force a victory quite quickly they could be faced with a sudden massive downgrading of their tactical capabilities due to losses of the their most expensive and difficult to replace weapons systems and shortages of extremely expensive ordnance. NATO has another problem in a technologically downgraded long war, the shortage of manpower. NATO armies are capital intensive relying on the firepower of technology, but have much reduced manpower. This caused serious problems in Iraq. Russia still has a rather more labour intensive army. If the war goes on for long NATO will struggle to hold any ground against Russian infantry.
An Israeli soldier told me that it says on the instruction panel of a T-62 tank that "the driver must be small and strong". I have limited personal experience, just the M113 I drove in Germany, but it seemed to me like combat effectiveness could degrade over time if the crew had to work in cramped positions.
Soviet doctrine, the general way of thinking was that a war with NATO will have lasted a couple of week at max before it ended with a victory by one side or mutal annihilation...so why work and spend to make confortable something that will last a couple of days if not hours in war at max
I feel like I'm watching a video about the best new battleship design in 1945. Fascinating perhaps, but ultimately probably pretty worthless in a modern conflict.
Well, tanks aren’t what we like to think pf them as, at least not anymore. However, it is as of yet not possible to replace them because no military has been able to come up with a system that can plug the holes left in the doctrine by removing tanks, so they aren’t dead *yet.*
Thanks Binkov. If Russia produced a new generation tank that outcompeted all other tanks by far, however it would never rule the battlefields as Russia simply does not have the money to build any high end military units an any kind of meaningful numbers. Having said that, the Russians do really need the T14 in meaningful numbers, because their current tanks and armoured units are getting absolutely OBLITERATED in Ukraine. It's a horrible situation for 90% of the Russian soldiers who do not even want to be there.
Nope, it's an obsolete bucket of bolts before it even entered production and they can't even afford to build many of them. It's been one year since the invasion of Ukraine and the T-14 has yet to appear on the battlefield.
I think your gun mantlet protection kenetic stats are very inflated. To achieve penetration and crew kills through the gun mantlet might be more difficult than normal turret armor because the kenetic penetrator needs to get through the massive steel gun breach after the mantlet armor. However, to damage the gun so it can no longer be used it is likely that any modern projectile only needs to hit the mantlet or barrel because the subsequet transfer of energy would warp the gun breach and barrel in an irreparable manor.
Get 68% off NordVPN! Only $3.71/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.com/binkov or use a coupon binkov
Cool thanks for telling
Could Modern 🇰🇷 survive the 50s Korean War and take the whole peninsula???
I know your using published (official) numbers but I know for a fact that the Abrams can go much faster than the stated speed limit. I can assume much the same for the others. Although it has a different style engine.
I know a tanker who swears he was going 80mph in one and he was still accelerating. I also understand that yes your more likely to blow a track doing that speed.
Laughs in drone
NordVPN has just moved all operations to US ... will you trust them when all hardware is in US?
The T-14 has fabulous stealth technology. No one has spotted one yet.
Hilarious 😂
Lol
lol
This comment makes me think of the British officer speaking to a soldier:
Officer: I did not see you at camouflage parade this morning.
Soldier: Thank you sir.
Lol
I can only imagine a column of headless T-14's wandering around without a turret looking for repairs...LOL
Rather have that then a couple dead crewmen in my tank
@@Marktheburrito The concept isn't without merit. Whether the current Russia can actually pull it off on the other hand . . .
😆😆😆😆😆🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@Marktheburrito if the tank tosses its turret the crew wont be feeling very good....
@@nickgehr8408 Dont think they'll be feeling much of anything at all lol
You know why they call it the T-14 right? Because they can only afford to build 14 of them.
the T is for towed for when it's outta gas or breaks down
May be incorrect but I hope you are right mate.
@@schiefer1103 google the series of mechanical failures its had
@@mawdeeps7691 I bet those ukrainian tractors will do the towing
@@mawdeeps7691 What series? I found one example, which may or may not have been part of a towing demonstration. The tank was able to leave the scene under its own power afterwards.
T-14 Im’ard’a
No
What
Why every military video i see you in the comments
@@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia672 well he is a military enthusiast and was in British army driving IFV or tank, or both (can't remember) and today belongs to Canadian artillery corps/army/brigade (don't know exactly how to call it). He also have youtube channel dedicated to military stuff (sometimes non military video also).
@Matsimus is just salty that a puppet is crushing him in views and making bank off video sponsors.
Yes, but how does it fare against tractors?
We will never know as it appears to be too afraid of the tractors to operate in the area.
@12JK4FFG it did not. The guy driving it accidentally put the brake on and didn't know how to take it off.
@12JK4FFG yes. I'm not trying to make Russia look good. Also if it's the incident I'm thinking of it was a parade rehearsal that it got stuck. My source is a Task & Purpose video.
@12JK4FFG i 100% believe russia is shit at training people
A former German tank designer interviewed on the channel of Panzermuseum Munster said that the idea of unmanned turrets was well researched, but western engineers never liked it much (outside a few ill-fated attempts like the concepts leading up to the M60 Starship). It had too many practical issues for simple things, like no longer having the option to stick your head out of the turret to look at something that's at a bad angle for a camera.
The designer also emphasised that Armata's size is now much more comparable to western tanks than the former Soviet designs.
It's famous for eating crew members appendages.
I don’t think this tank actually exists maybe 1 or 2
@@alexburke1899 It's the same old story. The Russians crow about their new being more advanced than their Western counterpart. Then they can only afford to produce 4 or 5 of them, same as our military industrial complex's technology demonstrators.
Jordan literally has a unmanned turret, based on a M60 or something. The technology is totally possible for the US, it's just dumb.
Do United States is going to upgrade the Abrams with an automatic turret. Check the news.
I guess you'll see a lot of them on any future battlefield in which they are used. You'll be able to easily locate them from the long columns of smoke and the fires from fuel and ammo cookoff.
I hear the T14s are incredibly capable when being towed by Ukrainian tractors
@@teddyd.5074 of course , ruski strong, vodka power
@@teddyd.5074 They are not even used lololol
@@perc7226 like the Russian army.
@@Brian-px9gu compared to US' military perhaps. No European army unfo will be able to combat the Russians for now (at least until Germany finishes it's 100B euro upgrade next year).
I’m guessing not because Putin can only be in one tank at a time.
That sounds like foreshadowing in a bad action movie lol
Putin isnt chuck norrys
Hey you're that guy who comments on WW2 Channel, am I right?
Rajesh Kathiriya Yes I do do that
That's what he wants you to think
Tank producer:Soo what kinda tank you want?
Russia:Small head tanks but thicc body
AH AH! Osas!
Russia initially embarked on a massive program to equip its forces with this tank but never got beyond the production of a few prototype tanks and then changed its tune, saying that its current tanks were competitive with NATO tanks and that it would just modernize its existing tanks. This is strikingly similar to the hype about the Su-57 and then Russia's backtracking that the Su-35 was good enough for its defense needs but then has come out now saying that its going to develop its latest and greatest Su-75.
I think what we are seeing with this country is an attempt to create halo weapon systems with which to dazzle unwary potential arms customers in the international market. We've seen its overhyped and underperforming missile defense systems that get defeated by Western technology when operated by Russia's customers. Russia is like an international used car salesman, let the buyer beware.
Aye all these people talking about how the greatest stealth plane is a LITERAL PIECE OF WOOD IN A SHOWROOM IN RUSSIA
Perfect couldn’t say it any better🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧
^^Imagine being able to read the future
Main problem with all the new systems is that Russia, while a huge country, has an economy on par with say, Spain in size. They have the skill and tech to put them together, but then the money bags are empty so back to the old stuff... again.
I live in California. Even our economy is bigger than Russia. If we were a nation, we would be have the sixth largest economy in the world.
Ironically, the video showed a large number of T-72. The tank that Russia can really afford. They are even putting a large number of more advanced T-80 and T-90 in storage. Only the armored units in the Western Military District facing NATO have all T-80 and T-90. All other armored units in the rest of Russia are mostly upgraded T-72, ex. T-72B3.
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Yeah, the same way the Yamato ruled the waves when it was built. LOL
Yeah so the allies ended up resorting to the use of aircraft to take it down.
@@mexicangovernment2305 I wouldn't say "resorted". The allies used a weapon system the DID rule the battlefield and waves of the future. By the time of WWII, Battleships were relics of a bygone era. Today, manned tanks are relics.
@@maxmeh2342 Well no, they aren't really relics, they are just not prepared for the current era
@@maxmeh2342 The Ukrainians themselves are proving that manned tanks are not relics, if they're using them to better effect than the Russians.
Hey now, that's not fair to the Yamato. Yamato was at least in full service and actually saw action (and even did critical damage to an escort carrier from very long range). The Armata is basically just a pathetic propaganda prop at this point.
The answer is no for three reasons. Reason 1: the Russian military can't afford to buy very many of them, so it's highly unlikely that they'd play a decisive role. Reason 2: the Russian military has clearly demonstrated that they do not understand armored or aerial combat in the least and, as such, any vehicle they deploy is going to be significantly less effective. Reason 3: the Armata has very good crew safety, but it's even more prone to a mission kill by shooting the turret than even older Soviet tanks or NATO tanks.
Just add that the Armata uses western high tech which is now sanctioned.
Bro then why don't u just invade russia? If it's so weak !! Russian military may not have good logistics in ukraine but it has an excellent Domestic logitics/
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 what Russia has is massive stocks of equipment and supplues, numbers and a primive barbarity willing to cause massive loss of life and infrastructure.Russia should be given a big taste of its own medicine by bombardment of its military bases , ships, rail communications, fuel terminals and hubs all the way to Moscow.
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Yup!
@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 hmm maybe because russia has nukes? Tho probably 90% of them wont even work because it costs shit ton of money to maintain but still has nukes
Russia has a large modern military. However the large part isn't modern and the modern part isn't large.
Well said
Yeah but using F-22s to bomb CIA rogue ISIS cavemen makes your panties wet, doesn't it?
They have tech probably more advance than Nato by now cuz nato almost abolished all military due to peace and no needed intervetionsm althoug Russia has problems with mass producing stuff if they do they will overtrun power to their side
@@Emporiumtutorial how would a country with the economy of Texas be able to develop technologies rivaling NATO?
the only thing that russia has that is not completely worthless is propably Su-35.
will it break the record on highest turret ever launched?
Well it is much lighter and with a roughly equal ammunition load. Should make it easier to propel even higher than all previous turrets.
@Skawei oi, russian bot, looks like you really don't know much about anti tank ammunitions. You can destroy any kind of tank in a single hit, the thing is where you hit it and how strong the projectile is
The T72s turret ejection system is working perfect in Ukraine.
Indeed. Reliability rate of over 80%. And people said Soviet tanks aren't well-built, aye?
Yeah wow Ukraine WINNING yeah. LOL.
@@cejannuzi are you upset that Russia isn't in Kyiv yet?
@@mdl2427 they are in kyiv but only their destroyed tanks are
@@cejannuzi nah botski russia winning so much, you chaps in kiev already right ? what was it 3 days ?
Well, only one way to find out!
*_Looks at the Caucuses_*
Lol true
Only azerbaijan and armenia still has to be attacked yet! Let's go!
@@kaichiohno he's right. Russian tanks got annihilated in karabakh by Turkish drones. Search it up if you don't believe me.
Gaius Wyrden I can only imagine what American heavy drones will do to Russian military equipment (Predator C1, MQ reaper 9, 25, X47, etc), I think the world saw the ineffectiveness of Russian anti aircraft weapons in 2020 ( Syria, Libya and now Azerbaijan) a 50k drone missile destroys 115 million S300 or 13 million Pantsir S1
@@MidwestDIY There were no S-300 or Pantsir in Armenia, they just use Osa-AKM of Soviet origin. You should not believe all of the propaganda you read.
Of course T-14s will rule the modern battlefield. All 10 of them.
Yep. For about 10 minutes.
Yup that's the true problem for Russia. Having the best tank in the world is irrelevant if you can't afford its mass production.
@@alfreddupont1214 they can afford it, but corruption and its stupid arms industry, and i mean state owned companies, they were proven to be less effective and cause more problems
All 2 of them. 3 tanks broke down, 5 more are made of cardboard and plasticine :))
@@mochiii608 considering their economic health? Not really. The Saudis have done a lot of damage, the result of US fracking technology leaving the kingdom very uncomfortable about their sole major export. Russia unfortunately is left in the blast radius.
You are right about state owned arms industries though, bureaucracies and efficiency don't go together.
Honestly its hard to feel threatened by this tank when they cant produce enough of them to even equip a brigade. Tbh i think its going to take them at least 10 years to make it in large enough numbers for it to be their mbt and by that time its going to be obsolete.
In WW2 everyone in the US Army was afraid of the German Tiger Tank. The strategy was to avoid it and let Air superiority deal with them.
It's possible the T-14 is just an example of what Russia usually does. Take a concept, like an unmanned turret, and push it as far as it can possibly go, then pare it down to something practical. What that would mean is that the Armata family is going to be used as a platform from which Russia will build a more practical tank with things like an unmanned turret and a hard kill APS
@@filmandfirearms I agree. Create the ultimate tank then make it affordable through sacrificing some design elements, all the while dovetailing it’s capabilities with your overall doctrine. It is the ultimate armor fighting vehicle.
@@philipgates988 no. This is a common myth.
American troops carried bazookas and would often either wait for the panzer to stop or they would ambush the panzer from the sides. The panzer was also not feared by the Sherman as it was able to easily outmaneuver the panzer and hit it from the side since the panzer's only 2 strengths are heavy frontal armor and a big gun. Everything else about the tank is a result of being hyped up by Wehraboos and hollywood movies, and in reality is actually completely garbage.
@@justakettlehelm1673 And I agree that missile technology will continue to wreak havoc on large assets.
I love how Blinkov diplomatically handled Crimea on the map.
time?
@@5hiftyL1v3a 22:50
@@asspukeshit Crimea is independent country 🤩... red for Soviet
@Ozymandias Nullifidian Well that's hardly true. Russia has only owned Crimea since 1783. That's a shorter time than the U.S has existed. The fact that Russia has decided to "Take back" Crimea is simple politics. Sevastopol has a massive warm water port, something Russia has always desired. So to get this warm water port they wrongfully invaded an independent country. Russia is in the wrong here. And always will be.
@@apotato6278 To be fair, he did say crime is Russian territory. Most of Russia's neighbors would agree.
As long as the Russians cannot fix their logistics, their mighty tanks barely make it out of the garage.
7 months later: Russia being routed, bringing back T62s from half a century ago, throwing untrained old men into trenches with a single magazine... Yeah they're fucked.
All tanks look badass until they hear a drone flying over.
Tank:Why do I hear boss music?
all drones rest in the sky until they hear the air defense Jets come in
@@apple222sickly what happens when Turkey equips its drones with air to air missiles to shoot down fighter jets?Because that's exactly what Turkey is planning to do.
Esa Shaik
Hmmm i wonder why they invented laser warning receivers and countermeasures
@@esashaik7083 yes tgey will put stingers on the ucavs bayractar and ankici but always the fighters will have an edge on uavs because of the stronger radars
@@commandergeokam2868 Turkeys drones have stronger radars than its F16s
Binkov: *Makes a video on T-14 Armata*
Red Effect: *OOOOOHHHHH!*
RedEffect would tear Binkov's a new one
@@phunkracy What would he do? Make up even more fake armour values?
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 wouldn't make basic mistakes
Red Effect did a way better job of analyzing the T-14s capabilities. He goes into the power train and agility a lot more and takes into account future upgradeability. Binkov sounds like he's guessing on most values. I'd take a middle path between the two for parsimony's sake.
@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 Binkov keep making mistake on the T-90M, its true that gunner has a 2nd Gen thermal viewer, but he failed to mention that commander has a 3rd Gen, and by this simple and slight mistake he then erroneously conclude that T-14 (which has 3rd Gen thermal viewer for both gunner and commander mind you) has an inferior targeting system.....what? If you think that's propaganda and T-90M don't have 3rd Gen for the commander you should know that T-90M uses a French made (and latter licensed built) Thales thermal viewer.
Armata has a massive problem.
The Javelin mk2 missile. All those sensors on the turret would be taken out, leaving the crew blind. The active defense systems won't be able to stop the Javelins top-down attack.
You predicted. Javelin is wreaking havoc in Ukraine
@@mabotyin dude there is no armata tanks in Ukraine, Russia sent old t-72 and few dozen t90 (main battle tank of Russia) which are entering just now in 2nd and 3rd convoys. Don't eat up USA propaganda so easily, truth is in the middle
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Western media hasn't specified which vairiants have been fielded. Also, western media is independent from the government, and therefore isn't propaganda. Our media happily critisizes the government. I wonder if that is the case in Russia? 🤣🤣
@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Also hardly any Armartas have been produced by now (and lets face it, Russia ain't got the cash to make any more!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
@George Fenrirbitadze because there aren't enough of them and they probably dont work as well as advertised.. Same with su 57s. Russia's modern military is YT propaganda. Stingers and javelins are wrecking their armor. They can't even keep their gas tanks full during an invasion. Imagine believing they're going to field modern battle tanks en masse.
For all the military specialists here:
Have fun arguing with each other
Theres so many "weapons experts" and "test drivers" in the comment section
I take offense to that, we fight now! 🤣 Jk
War thunder couch commandos
lololol
Given that the US has already gotten detailed information about the Armata and has developed ammunition that is able to penetrate the Armata's armor, and that the tank rounds for NATO are largely standardized (UK has to be an oddball), I'd say no, it won't rule future battlefields. Add to it that Russia cannot produce enough of them to replace combat losses in the event of a major war and it gets worse.
Edit: Alright people, after MONTHS of this comment being up I finally noticed enough to say: UK No longer an oddball and has a smoothbore like all the other cool kids. Armata's even MORE fucked than it was before.
Uk no longer an oddball
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor proof? i doubt the russians would risk their prized new tank when they only have a handful and they're likely to be stolen by some ukrainian farmers and dragged off to poland where NATO would be happy to provide disassembly service.
@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor did i say anything as stupid as fake news? i just wanted sources because i've been following the war pretty closely and i haven't seen anything about T-14s in battle. and hearing rumors is a long way from a firm confirmation, esp. if they haven't captured any, even from reliable sources.
depleted uranium rounds will go through that armata like butter. at 8 million dollars an armata, its just an expensive crematorium.
@@giovanni-ed7zq as true as that is, the US has been trying to shift away from DU since it's otherworldly amounts of expensive and using it is *technically* a war crime
Tractor towing hook installed?
Lazerpig brought me here. This is comedy gold. "In some regards more advanced than NATO tanks".
😂😂😂😂
23:50 "It's cost seems to be precluding its production in very high numbers." If you think that was a problem before Feb 2022, it's going to become an even bigger problem going forward. Tell me, can they build this without western microprocessors? China doesn't make microprocessors, you know. And I'm not sure it will be a good idea to load the Russian military with Chinese electronics. Every system will have excellent back doors you never find until China decides to turn off the entire Russian military.
I was thinking the same thing. Russia has only produced about 20 T-14s to date. And given the financial and technological sanctions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they may not be able to produce very many, if any, for the next decade. Meanwhile Russia's actions will have boosted NATOs military spending by another 1% of GDP or so for the next decade. And since NATOs GDP is much higher than Russia's (and will be relatively less affected by the war and sanctions) the existing spending disparity (NATO spent 12x more than Russia in 2016, so will probably outspend Russia by 20x-25x each year for the next decade) will only increase. Looks like Putin's war will trigger a repeat of how Reagan's military spending v. USSR essentially bankrupted the USSR at the end of the cold war.
@@wealthelife everyone nows first 100 hours of air campaign if war starts. so that t-14 wont survive the air campaign. i think the idea of tank warefare and long lines of ground troops is obsolete idea now. you do that against american airforce, highway of death 2.
@@giovanni-ed7zq There's a difference between taking ground and keeping it - tanks are for the second-wave once the air-battle's been won to comb out any remaining hostile forces with less losses than you would get with pure infantry. Or, they should be at least *looks at Russia...*
As for defence, a tank is significantly easier to hide than a jet (which normally needs an airstrip+hangars+all the equpiment needed to re-arm, repair and refuel it) - as all you need to do is drive to a position with a decent view and some foiliage, throw a camo net and drape some shrubbery over it - wait a week or so when the airstrikes have died down and the enemy convoys are coming in and then clean off and jump into the tank, fire off a few HE shells to decimate an incoming enemy convoy at many times the range of standard infantry anti-tank weapons - then relocate (while being entirely safe from any small-scale retaliation), cover up the tank and take cover in the 10 or so minutes it'll probably take for the enemy to scramble an airstrike. Also, don't forget that active defence systems exist and can be mounted on tanks now - so it'll take a lot more than a single missile to kill a modern western tank.
Throw in the fact that countries like Germany have developed armour which can emulate different heat signitures to throw off enemy targeting/identification and they're far from irrelevent - they just have a lesser role now within combined arms doctrine than they did in previous conflicts.
@@giovanni-ed7zq Not many countries can perform that sort of air dominance. Even for the USAF, which considers it a specialty of theirs, it's something that takes immense planning and concentration of resources and is even then only possible due to being a truly world class force.
@@giovanni-ed7zq the USAF is going to crumble like a crouton if they are going to fight anyone other than insurgents
The Armata won't be standard with the Guards Motorized rifle regiments/tank regiments until the late 2020s-2035. I'd say by 2035. They would have to phase out all the t-90s, 72BMs, and whatever 80Us they have left to make room.
They don't have to phase them out at all, they'll supply them on the cheap to Syria, Armenia, Iran, Egypt to further push their influence there without direct involvement.
@Antoine Lachapelle They could export them but they would be in service with other countries even if those countries are in Russia's sphere of influence. Or the Russians would supply the leftover vehicles to the reservists or Cat B formations if those still exist (Cat B and C formations did during Soviet times).
Metal 1974 reserve means dumped in a field and left to rot
And at that point they'll be obsolete
By that time that Abrams replacement should be in Frontline service with the American military
"Lack of depression in the turret"
Yeah, I don't have that problem, they can have some of mine.
8:36 that is scary
At this point, it appears the first foe the T14 needs to beat is the budget
In Desert Storm Americans proved that ground army is a sitting duck without Air Superiority. As long as T-14 enjoys safe from air strike battleground then yeah why not.
T-14 seem like a great tank on theory, like how communism looks like a savior for humanity on paper.
22:56 your map is in error. It colors the Crimean peninsula in the Russian colour.
You’re still buying into the brochure as if all these systems work flawlessly. In such a corrupt culture as modern Russia, problems with complex systems are hidden or downplayed so that everyone can report a positive result to their immediate superior. The design is impressive at arm’s length but the reality is that most Russian weapons are the products of cutting corners. Then consider who crews these tanks? the quality of Russian forces has been catastrophically overestimated against the obvious facts that they are very poorly paid and training is obviously deficient. If the T14 goes into battle as poorly protected by infantry as the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine, they’ll be handled in the popular manner.
: Dmitri why your hat looks different today ??
: It is made of extra tank round, made one for you too...
So marginally better, and vastly more expensive...
Looks like the Rus have learned in the F-35 school of weapons development.
More like the F22... We have the F35 for sales to other countries, the F22 for home defense
Technical documentation on stealth technology was recieved from Russia in 1990-s.
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev
the Russians decided that stealth technology is a dead end and therefore did not develop these technologies
F-35 technology was bought from Soviet Union. It's Stealth design + formula and the vertical engine. So stop acting like F-35 is the last word in technology Russia had the technology 40 years before the F-35 was introduced LMAO. + F-35 will be absoloute against Russian air defence systems S-400 or S-500. Russia isn't Iraq or Afghanistan my friend.
@@hurryboi8558 Russians invaded Russia? What you smoking my friend?
@@natureblank1401 A gép gyártását 1978-ban kapta meg a Lockheed modern programokkal foglalkozó részlege, a kaliforniai Burbank-ben székelő Skunk Works. Az első gép 1981-ben szállt fel a Skunk Works 51-es körzet néven elhíresült Groom Lake bázisáról, alig 31 hónappal azután, hogy meghozták a sorozatgyártási döntést. Az első F-117A-t 1982-ben szállították le, a gépet 1983-ban állították hadrendbe és az utolsó Nighthawkot 1990-ben készítették el. A légierő 1988-ig tagadta a gép létezését, majd 1990 áprilisában egy F-117A-t kiállítottak a nevadai Nellis légibázison, ahova több tízezer látogatót vonzott. :P russia 1978 : moszkvics zaporozsec xD
Everybody gangsta until A-10 Warthog arrives...
The GAU won’t penetrate modern tanks.
@@stanleyspadowski235 from the top it will and it will definitely fuck the engine bay.
@@Likeaworm Robert is correct. Even the M1A1 was proof against a hard kill from an A10. Immobilize it yes (which in modern battle means it will become a hard kill).
I knew the head design engineer at Chrysler Defense who designed the M1 gun system (who worked for my father before changing companies) as well as the engineer who designed the gau gun drive (my father).
It was actually something considered as part of the design and something discussed during the armor tests.
Oh and his top speed number for the M1 is way off and low and I assume its off for the others.
@A TV
A-10 is a nice stationary target for the Pantsir, BUK-M3, TOR-M2U, S-300, S-350, S-400 and so on. Have a nice day. They can send A-10 to heLL, with just a simple click of a button.
The A-10 is fairly niche in the modern battlefield, as it is relatively slow and lacks stealth. It's main advantages are cost per mission/hour and ability to stay in an area for a long time (loiter time). It's great for asymmetrical warfare. However, anywhere that expensive modern assets like the T-14 are deployed would also likely have AA support sufficient to deter it. A more likely aerial threat would be smart bombs dropped from high altitude, for example, from an F35.
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?"
Ukraine: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Bayraktar has entered the chat
None were sent into Ukraine.
@@danielcadwell9812 yeah because there isnt enough of them because russia cant afford
"Peace was never an Option"
“The T-14 is using one generation newer reactive armor plates than those on the T-90” okay so the T-72’s had cardboard and garbage in the reactive panels. The T-90’s had blocks of old rubber. What comes after old rubber in the development tree? Plywood?
Man this channel provides glimpses past the BS in so many ways.
This channel is a place for American narratives don't push the blame and act like it's a Russian Propoganda channel Lmao.
@@natureblank1401 "American naratives" roughly translates to "i don't like the fact my country would have the literal shit kicked out of it by the USA
@@anguswaterhouse9255 This applies to both sides, you know perfectly this is a Pro-US chanel full stop.
NATO tank: exist in operation
T14: does not exist in operation
So this is not even a competition. T14 is a nice concept on paper, but Russia does not have the financial power to go from concept to operational use
I like these arguments when people say the SU-57 is better than XXXX or the T-14 is better than XXXX. Even if that's true it doesn't matter since both of those examples have serious issues that are delaying them from being built in any significant number.
The Me 262 was well beyond the capabilities of aircraft during it's time. It didn't matter because there were just too few of them.
The bigger hypothetical isn't if the T-14 is better than it's contemporaries. It's if they can even build them lol.
"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No because more than likely there won't be enough of them.
Only in CGI movies... It's a science fiction tank.
Lol nope
@@mbtenjoyer9487 ok, so send it to Ukraine if it's real. Win the war!
Today we can answer the question with simple: No.
What T14....They can't make it. Its still not in production.
Very informative! Whenever I need a realistic battle discussion, I come here!
lol me too
Saint Javelin says no.
"Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No, because they can't afford to make them, and never will be able to.
We can assume that this tank uses steel, but we do not have reliable information about this.
It may also be asbestos or polysterene - it all looks the same, when you put paint on it.
We should assume that it uses an outer armor layer of steel and internally some kind of composite armor, just like all armor on modern MBT.
@@Schnittertm1 T-90 and T-72 use Nera plates of steel and rubber. Some Steel plates are improved whit other materials. T-80 uses Steel, high arden steel and Polimer/ceramic whit pockets.
The last I heard the Russians can't afford to produce the T14,they were going to acquire only 20 copies of each variant,tank,BMP,Wrecker,bridge layer,and command and control vehicle, for a total of 100...
How far have they actually gotten? Have they produced ANY? Are they actually complete with sensors and so on?
They have 10 T 14s, just 10. Three are prototypes. They were supposed to have 100 the first year. If people haven't been paying attention, tanks are no longer the weapons they were. Drones are the weapons that will win battles.
Drones didn’t win the Afghanistan War
Jokes aside, the T-14 suffers the problems of the Tiger 2, although we might never see how great they are fully, they were so lowly produced that 100 tanks on each front won’t help, maybe win a Skirmish but the war is lost just due to mobility alone
Some Russian official is probably now sitting somewhere in an hidden office, his face burried in his hands as Binkov here is so expertly revealing all the aspects of their new tank.
He shakes his head, muttering, "It's a puppet, a fucking sock puppet", takes a final shot of vodka, and eats his pistol barrel
@@IceniBrave What a shit in your heads?
"expert"
Not really. Binkov is hugely biased towards NATO in all videos when it touches the tech and quality of equipment. So his very slight and inconfident approval of T-14 actually speaks that even he couldn't disagree at how good that tank is, even though he would love to critisize it as much as possible.
@@thedreamscripter4002 Exactly!
I know all the sensors are protected but, are they protected enough to still work right after being hit by a high explosive round on the outside? If i was in an inferior tank and i knew my "AP" rounds probably weren't going to pen, I might try blinding the tank by damaging its sensors with HE.
I wouldn't count on them ruling any battlefield when military tech has sort of evolved away from the traditional battlefield and either moved towards American-style air superiority or low-tech terrorists tactics. A tank is great to have as support once you've got a position you want to hold onto, but in reality you shouldn't expect to see much tank on tank fighting any more... unless Russia and China decide to have a go at each other.
In a short war or a war where enemy air defense's aren't a factor that makes sense. After two years of attrition you can count on America slowly running out air assets and having to be more careful, that doesnt factor in what happens when they can't establish air dominance to begin with.
@@TGBurgerGaming The USAF is 12,000 planes overall with 100 f-35's coming off the line every year in peace time which would increase in war.
China+russia have less planes than us believe me you don't base your military stratagy around air power unless you're REALLY wanting to dominate
@@anguswaterhouse9255 have you seen the simulations for modern air wars? Guided missiles reduce the survival rate to around 3% for pilots regardless of which side you're on. You can expect expensive planes to be used sparingly soon after the first few engagements and replacements to be cheaper and easier to mass produce, only less advanced. There's no way the US establishing air dominance over the South China sea let alone the mainland with any kind of ease. Most simulations show entire carrier groups being lost. Russia would be a similar problem with the added issue of geography. You can't send enough planes to dominate an area that big.
@@TGBurgerGaming no one said it be easy but it be done, the us and it's allies have absolute air superiority, they would see heavy losses but would in the end completely or near completely control the skies. These situations aren't good arguments as they are usually unfair and stacked against the us forces and unrealistic as that's the whole point of it.
@@TGBurgerGaming If these simulations were created by American or Eastern Bloc nations, then you probably shouldn't trust it.
For propaganda purposes the Russian and Chinese military liked to hype up their military. The American military on the other hand like to make their own military look weak to ask for more funding from Congress.
This has aged well!
9:08 I have to point out this error, those are just smoke launchers, the afganit aps is the two boxes with a bunch of charges on top of the turret
If those battlefield are in video games, then maybe
Hi Binkov, been watching your material for a bit and gotta say this was my favorite. Appreciate you differentiating between factual and estimates.
It's the best ceremony tank ever since it's built for ceremonies only.
It is always misleading to compare one isolated weapon with another isolated weapon. All weapons operate within a tactical system of combined arms, command, control, communication and intelligence. All of this has to be considered when comparing one MILITARY and how it operates against another.
The only advantages the Russian tanks had to offer were that they were simple, they were reliable, and they could be made in numbers. T-14 is complicated, expensive, will require a massive investment in training, and they'll never field a full division. It's a paper tank. In perfect conditions without dust and dirt, that tank is going to look pretty good. In the field, I doubt they'll be able to maintain them for any length of time. They made the classic mistake of building a weapon to fight the last war.
déjà vu ... same thing was said about Su-57 for years. "not even 5G", "Over rated" "as stealthy as an elefant in the savanna" and then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters the criticism became "they cant use it" "too sophisticated" "too expensive to purchase" and when the contract for Su-57 was signed and manufacturng began they switched on to the T-14 ...
Guys Chill, why are you even talking about costs and performance when the tank is still changing ... it did not pass tests yet, Chill boys XD
@@tunisiandom9318 buahahahaha, must be really difficult to even say, what you just did. Russian military equipment is the same as anything Russian. All crap.
Dude, Russian tanks were anything but reliable. You were lucky it the POS started.
@@tunisiandom9318 > then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters
When did that happen? Can you share a link or something? I've never heard of anyone saying that.
that nordVPN thing has become particularly funny given recent events
I love how T14, a completely new developed tank, is compared against tanks that are already 40 years old.
Man your dumb
And Chally 2 and Abrams would kick its arse
@@burnttoaster6313 Says the man who cant spell "youre"
@@peterstubbs5934 Unlikely, Challenger 2 is getting old. Chinese and japanese MBTs are already ahead of it.
@@Rssika how many T14 are in the russian Army and how many get the Army in the future? compare it to number of all T72 Types like the T90(T-72BU) T-72B3.... the T14/T15 are to expensive, a total of 132 T14/T15 is not a lot
Armata never been to a fight, its only a prototype
After recent events, the answer is most definitely not.
IIRC, I remember Jordan having a tank with an unmanned turret. It's a Chally 1 with an unmanned turret similar to Armata or STH.
And to date it’s never found a buyer. Even in the Jordanian army.
@@highjumpstudios2384 Maybe it is because Chally 1 is obsolete. I dunno.
The Jordanian army is filled with ariete's today. I guess the challenger 1 with the unmanned turret was indeed obsolete.
I remember seeing a bastardised Challenger 1 that had been turned into an APC some years ago in Combat and Survival magazine
HMS Belfast the challenger 1 is still used in some countries as supporting tanks
Interesting to see, that especially the newer Gen (at least NATO, don't know for Russia) autocannons are more and more optimized to be able to mission kill the optics of battle tanks, something that was considered in the development of Puma's weaponry and the related precision - if you can't penetrate them that easy anymore, first overfeed hardkill, then destroy sensors, day over.
And you think you can kill all the sensors with just one hit ? And, then....next move is his
Good God. NOT ONE of these tanks are in service, and the production run of 2300 has been reduced to 100. TOTAL. That's twenty minutes of work for a single A-10.
Looks like the answer is a firm no.
The North Korean Pok Pung Ho MK3 with cold nuclear fusion power reactor for propulsion is also excellent! Its the only Nuclear Fusion powered land vehicle!
You must be sarcastic because fusion power doesn't exist yet and the Pokpung Ho is a t-62 with a lengthened hull.
🤣🤣🤣 That's why your country is the only one dark at night on satellite. All that free, limitless energy you say?
@@jc.1191 its not my country but northkorea switches over to infrared light to prevent imperialist air raid attacks or drone survey. Everyone in North Korea ownes nightvision glasses.
@@Schlipperschlopper Paid troll, you have transparent arguments. We have satellite and gps data, we know where you are at. We also can see infrared and radar frequencies. You aren't scientifically educated are you? Maybe try that, good use of your time.
@@jc.1191 You that North Korea has the best peoplespizza, hamburgers and spaghetti? North Korea rules the world!!!! North Korea also makes the best Shisha tobacco, cigars and whisky! Dont miss their superb soy sauce and kimchi!
The number naming it's kind of weird if you didn't figure out why.
T-34 - 1934
T-55 - 1955
T-72 - 1972
T-80 - 1980
T-90 - 1990
T-14 - 2014
You get the point or i was wrong?
Back to 1914 haha ??
Having none of your offensive weaponry protected by some sort of armour has to have a lot of draw backs...
Yes the crew is protected, but if your gun can be completely destroyed by a 25mm bushmaster it doesn’t matter how protected your crew is you may as well not even shown up... not to mention the crazy complex repairs that would be needed...
What crazy complex repair, its easy, change the Turret ! And dont underestimate the russian industry in case of War they will produce war material in all parts of their "empire" its a big country, dont make the same mistake like the germans in WW" and underestimate the russians
@@Sturminfantrist when did I even talk about the Russian industry or even attack/underestimate them...
I simply comment on the massive drawback at having no armour on the turret..
Its Complex because you cannot do in on the roadside.. you will need a heavy crane not to mention logistics to get the million dollar turret to the location of repair.... without damage... if your primary way of fixing the turret is just swapping it out thats fine... but someone.. at some point just going to have to fix the turret...
@@dakkadakka4236 i think its used so the round can penetrate intact before doing too much damage (less shrapnel damage) because most of tank combat casualties are caused by either dead crew or ammo rack blow up.
@@yorle6527 nah, I wouldn't think so as the crew are in their own armoured pod.. so even if the ammo does go up the crew are still safe...
It just doesn't make sense to me.. yeah sure no crew are in the turret to be protected... but if you don't have the thing in the turret protected. That thing in the turret being your only form of attack, and it takes a hit it will be damaged and most likely unable to continue fighting in that battle.. where as any nato tank turret takes a hit there is a chance that it will be still be able to fight on..
@@dakkadakka4236 i think the turret is made weak by design, so if an APFSDS hit the turret it will penetrate and go out the other way without causing too much damage. The turret isnt weak in all sides the important parts like the mantlet have a decent armor protection
This is no doubt a top of the line great tank. Interesting to see the Russians scrapping their old doctrine of quantity over quality in favour of better units lately.
Quantity just isn't feasable anymore, as russia isn't one of the most populous countries anymore.
@@ravenknight4876 Russia has barely ever been one of the most populous countries. Even in 1930s Soviet population was 160 million of which only about 110-120 was actual, Russians. That would put them on par with Americans. And sunce ww2 it has only been downhill for Russia and rest of Europe compared to the rest of the world.
Russia's new military doctrine is neither quality nor quantity. Its, "what can we drag out of storage to make people think we've got a functioning procurement program..."
@@SuperLusername the fact that the soviets in ww2 were able to throw away so many lives proves and still have divisions of tanks and infantry streaming towards Germany proves you wrong.
Russia never engaged in a quantity over quality doctrine.
The auto loader is cool but it’s that much more that could go wrong and it’s still slower than the average human loading it themselves.
The only good tank is a moving tank
Bob Semple best tank?
Lol yup
How about helicopters?
Anti-tank guns: *"Allow us to inroduce ourselves"*
Drone "say hello to my leetle friend"
tanks only fear of air attack, no matter how advanced it is !!! Take an example in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict tanks are like target practice for drones even the Armenia and Karabakh has air defence system.
Yeah. This hasn't come to fruition much since most conflicts since the collapse of the USSR has been against smaller countries or unconventional units who lack the funding for good air support. In a conventional war against better funded armies, I could see MANPADs being mounted onto existing armored vehicles to protect against air attack. A .50 wont cut it today as any aerial threats to armor are too far, too fast, or too armored for an M2 or NSV(even a RWS equipped one) to be a real threat.
@@MPdude237 look up what happened to iraqs air defence system
That's why air defence systems exist LMAO
We know that this thing on the back of the turret is ammo storage, but how exactly you load this backup ammo to autoloader? Or any ammo at all? There is no hatch to get in turret, and pictures shows that there is no entrance to turret at all, because electronics is behind gun bridge so you have literally a small plate to open to "peak into cables" and that's about it.
I'm from the future 2022 and I can tell you nope it can't even handle driving down a paved road .
Another unbeatable-on-paper russian weapon.
So in conclusion, the only way to see if the T-14 is going to be combat effective is to have the crew train in tactics then put the T-14 into combat to get real time information to get upgrades or advancements in tactics with the T-14 crews input!
11:11 when Binkov has the decency to remind us that we are separate.
Hats off to you kind sir
The era of the tank as the main component in advancing on the ground has passed
@David Uriel Heavy armor wiped out recently by drones in Syria
No it hasn’t
@@burnttoaster6313 1 They are too heavy to moved to a conflict zone quickly and in large numbers
2 They absorb a huge amount of resources to keep them operating in combat. An Abrams needs like 6 gallons of fuel PER MILE
3 They have become extremely vulnerable to the latest drones and air launched anti tank weapons
@@TheCerebralDude Modern remote weapon stations have equally as good sensors and fire control as the main gun. It can make short work of tiny drones in anti-air role. Not to mention increasing use of jammers onboard tanks as soft kill. Not just against missiles, but IEDs and suicide drones. Also something isn't obsolete unless 1) something does its job better, or 2) it is rendered incapable of fulfilling its role. Neither of these criteria have been met. Nothing does what a tank does better than a tank. Nor are the current anti-tank weapons sufficient at stopping a tank force from doing its job effectively.
Syrian tanks are not modern and is a whole generation and possible 2 behind the developed world. There wasn't small suicide drones in the 70s. Syrian tanks don't have the current generation of fire control computers for their main gun. Let alone remote weapon stations. Of course they will do poorly.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 1 Something does do it’s job better, attack helicopters. They are far easier to move in force to far away war zone they are faster can return to support bases to refuel and rearm; and can match tanks in firepower I
Rumor has it that both have broken down...
And now there's the Challenger 3.
only thing that can save challenger 3 from being behind abrams sepv3 , leos and russian tanks is aps
@@super_slav_6183 which it has
@@super_slav_6183 and the fact is has the best armour in the world, but thanks everyone else for showing up.
@@stephen2583 sure m8, that armour wont prottec against modern ammunition
@@super_slav_6183 Says who? No country in the world has access to british armour so no one in the world can test to see how effective or ineffective their weapons would be. And as the armour is uniquely different from any other armour in the world you cannot make a comparative test.
A limited 1st world military with a 3rd world economy equates to the T-14 being another "wonder weapon" that dictators love so much. No matter how effective they are they would be quickly eleminated due to overwhelming numbers of comparable tanks and anti-armor assets and lack of depth in their logistics chain. But what's important is future Binkov videos. Might I suggest Papua New Guinea canaballistic head hunters versus the current US House of Representatives. I would love to see the aftermath.
Russia is far ahead of a 3rd world economy. Not saying they equal the west however they aren't as far back as the former USSR was.
Also for my 2 cents long term good/great relationships with Russia is far more likely than with China.
Now while it would be fun watching headhunters going after congress (both houses actually) they would have to be warned that eating a congress critter most probably would cause at least food poisoning if not outright death as tainted as they are.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Russian economy potential is much worse then of USSR and you probably thinking about late soviet history but Russia today could not match to CCCP from like 60s. And btw Russian economy is going more and more to shit while they problem internal rises and they have many of them. And its kinda funny but for average citizin even Belarus have higher standard of living not to mention ex soviet republic or most ex eastern block countries
Some truth in this but I don't know where the overwhelming numbers of enemy tanks are coming from. NATO has greatly slashed it tank numbers, Armoured divisions are very expensive to maintain in peace time, though Poland has greatly increased them. There is even now a bizarre debate about abolishing the tank. The main NATO advantage is going to be in the air as the US can fly in almost any number of its huge reserve of aircraft within days, as long as the ground facilities are still usable. However NATO has some similar problems to that of the Germans in going to war against Russia in WW2. NATO equipment is highly engineered according to the doctrine of tactical superiority, win the battle and you win the war. This did not work out for Germany because of the prolonged nature of the conflict. NATO too has very limited stocks of ammunition which is vastly expensive to produce and it would be long and costly to also replace losses in materiel and men. In the short-term Russia has an advantage because it takes time for NATO to bring US heavy division across the Atlantic, but this advantage will quickly diminish as US airpower builds up. In the middle-term NATO has a strong advantage once it can bring its full ground forces and air power to bear. If however NATO cannot force a victory quite quickly they could be faced with a sudden massive downgrading of their tactical capabilities due to losses of the their most expensive and difficult to replace weapons systems and shortages of extremely expensive ordnance. NATO has another problem in a technologically downgraded long war, the shortage of manpower. NATO armies are capital intensive relying on the firepower of technology, but have much reduced manpower. This caused serious problems in Iraq. Russia still has a rather more labour intensive army. If the war goes on for long NATO will struggle to hold any ground against Russian infantry.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Russia GDP size about same as South Korea's. 11th place in global ranking
@@anthavio and number 6 in PPP.
N Korea GDP is 50 times smaller than Russia.
Use real data instead of off the cuff wishes
at the moment, the main problem of Russian tanks is the lack of money for their construction
An Israeli soldier told me that it says on the instruction panel of a T-62 tank that "the driver must be small and strong". I have limited personal experience, just the M113 I drove in Germany, but it seemed to me like combat effectiveness could degrade over time if the crew had to work in cramped positions.
Soviet doctrine, the general way of thinking was that a war with NATO will have lasted a couple of week at max before it ended with a victory by one side or mutal annihilation...so why work and spend to make confortable something that will last a couple of days if not hours in war at max
I feel like I'm watching a video about the best new battleship design in 1945. Fascinating perhaps, but ultimately probably pretty worthless in a modern conflict.
Did you just cancel the entire idea of "armoured object"?
Well, tanks aren’t what we like to think pf them as, at least not anymore. However, it is as of yet not possible to replace them because no military has been able to come up with a system that can plug the holes left in the doctrine by removing tanks, so they aren’t dead *yet.*
"Metric ton will be used throughout the video"
That would be a tonne.
Thanks Binkov. If Russia produced a new generation tank that outcompeted all other tanks by far, however it would never rule the battlefields as Russia simply does not have the money to build any high end military units an any kind of meaningful numbers. Having said that, the Russians do really need the T14 in meaningful numbers, because their current tanks and armoured units are getting absolutely OBLITERATED in Ukraine. It's a horrible situation for 90% of the Russian soldiers who do not even want to be there.
Very innovative design and even with all known-unknowns I guess a force to be reckoned with.
Not.
"I guess a force to be reckoned with" you sir, just described every single other modern MBT in existance
@@oyundashzeveg8883 I think so too. Albeit not in isolation but as a key element in a combined arms team.
That "innovative" Design was already tested in USA and Germany 40 years ago...
Nope, it's an obsolete bucket of bolts before it even entered production and they can't even afford to build many of them. It's been one year since the invasion of Ukraine and the T-14 has yet to appear on the battlefield.
Still miles behind the challenger 2 tank and that's 23 years old.
It really depends on who has the air superiority.
I think your gun mantlet protection kenetic stats are very inflated. To achieve penetration and crew kills through the gun mantlet might be more difficult than normal turret armor because the kenetic penetrator needs to get through the massive steel gun breach after the mantlet armor. However, to damage the gun so it can no longer be used it is likely that any modern projectile only needs to hit the mantlet or barrel because the subsequet transfer of energy would warp the gun breach and barrel in an irreparable manor.
Any hit to the T-14 turret should be able to critically damage the auto loader or fire control systems and mission kill it.
@@roceye yes that’s the point
Update: it has yet to be mass produced