The T-14 Armata: The Next-Gen Russian Supertank that Never Seems to Come
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Discover the T-14 Armata, Russia's latest battle tank with explosive reactive armor, laser-guided missile, and advanced fire-control systems. Explore its features, setbacks, and controversial deployment in Ukraine.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
The greatest stealth tank to ever exist. No one has ever even visually seen one in battle !
Vaporware tank.
Savage.
the greatest stealth tanks are challengers, leopards and abrams in ukraine, everyone talks about them, but no one has seen
@@kgdmen yes cuz it will takes weeks & months to bring those hardware in 1 country thousand kilo meters away to Ukraine, all the process it needs takes a lot of time. but of course you didn't use your brain that much to understand this.
@@earrickdichoso7347 months? seriously? load and transfer a maximum of a week. burning abrams and leopards bad for business
I think the thumbnail has a translation mistake. The T-14 isn't an unstoppable, death machine. It's an unstartable, dead machine.
If that demonstration proved anything, it’s that stopping is one of the things at which the T-14 excels.
Mark A. Very humorous and apparently true!
Your comment goes to 11
@MZT "There are no Ukrainians in Bakhmut! They are committing suicide on the city gates! There are only Russians in Bahkmut!"
LOL...
@@marka4891 they have been there for 8 months with corpses, all the surrounding fields are filling up, we are aware
Ahh, yes. The famous T-14 Armata. The first (and most likely only) example of a new class of tanks: MPT ("Main Parade Tank"). The tank that is SO good, that Russians never use them, just to give their opponents a fighting chance!
MPT :DDDDDDDDD
And how long coming was that F35 Joint Strike Fighter, again, please remind me? 22 years! The Armata took 9 years of development and has been in regular production for the past 2 years. that’s less than half the time it took for the F35.
@@Mortablunt The F-35 is the bleeding edge of fighter technology and is at the forefront of fighter aircraft design and capabilities. The T-14 is a T-80BVM with an Ali Express body kit. The two couldn't be more radically different.
@@Mortablunt it doesn't matter, since sanctions Russia can't develop their own cars, not to mention T14. its a dead project.
Russia does not want this to be an all-out war. Russia has said this is a special military operation. If it goes to war in Ukraine, don't expect Nato's weapons to defeat it
Not only has the terminator seen action in Ukraine, but it committed a rapid tactical disassembly
@@johnnyjericho8472 no, we watched direct drone footage of one getting destroyed, full clip is out there if you actually do some digging. lets talk about dropping the vdv onto hostomel airport with no optics :P
@@johnnyjericho8472 sounds like the response of someone trying to cope with the Russian failures
@@johnnyjericho8472 Russia not suck that bad I swear, lol.
@@johnnyjericho8472 Cope harder.
Just as how Cruiser Moskva tactically transformed into a submersible.
Those are impressive stats. I have just one question....
How far can it throw a turret?
likely about 90meters.
If Russia ever fields the damn things, we'll find out pretty quickly. There's no end to the amount of systems that could wreck any tank currently in production, and Ukraine currently has most of them deployed.
I think if this is their best, 300 metres 👍
@@anxietygamingactual6554 fake systems don’t wreck anything. This is just Putins Fake tank 👎
Well considering the T90M doesn't pop its turret everytime one gets smashed, it's safe to say it won't, doesn't mean this tank is invincible though.
The Russians hold onto the legacy of the t-34 like Pabst holds onto their blue ribbon from 1893.
LazerPig did an amazing deep-dive into the T-14 Armata just a few days ago.. heavily recommend a watch if for nothing else than to give a better cultural context and armored warfare know-how.
The Hognissiah always makes the best videos. I watch them multiple times to get it all.
@@LuvLikeTruck I love the term hognissiah... I am going to use that from now on.
@@adam346 I also refer to Perun as the God Emperor of PowerPointkind
If you haven't seen his videos, they are some of the best military logistics analysis PowerPoints in the world
@@LuvLikeTruck I watch his as well, stumbled onto them fairly early and have been keeping up every sunday... now if only the hognissiah can keep a decent schedule or releasable content but he has more issues than "what can I discern from what is happening" and epic marketing to worry about.
He has a few wrong notes so don’t take it all at face value
Considering the wings consistently melted off of the most feared soviet fighter, I'm going to guess this is largely made of cardboard and optimism.
you are not far off.. we don't know how many actual turrets had been made and wood mockups might be more common than metal.
As opposed to Chinese stuff, which is paper mâché and MDF.
cardboard and copium*
You should pray not to find out. If your gov sends you to war, you will quickly learn what melts first.
@@oknevals Russian Boys and their old soviet toys
Quite funny, they recently had a tour through the factory where the T-14 was being produced over there in Russia. It showed a few shots of the factory production line.
There was a similiar tour/interview through the exact same factory back in 2017/2018.
People on the internet cross referenced both tours and saw that the entire production line had not been moved since 2018 - the latest tour with the tarp/wheels/ensembly/moveable stairs being in the exact same spot as a few years prior.
Ever since the 2014 sanctions on russia they have not been able to produce more T-14's when stock ran out for their optics and other high quality and expensive parts for this tank.
Hahahaha! They suck at propaganda and it still works on Russians. Frightening.
It is a shame. Well sort of. Love the concept of building a solid chassis, remote control turret, and leaving room to upgrade to a heavier caliber.
I wonder if putting the engine in the front would be better. Better crew protection and balancing from what I understand. Then again probably raises thermal signature when you don't want it.
I think 360 active defenses, thermal systems to hide from IR, optics, and a place to land an charge their own recon drone is the future of Tanks. Seems like armor is just not beating the advances in weapons.
Also having a huge supply of electricity for silent running and hiding IR should be a priority.
I think the problem is more the production line itself. All T-14s we see are essentially hand-built technology demonstrators to generate foreign interest in fully developing it and a building a production line. If no foreign buyer signs on to pay the first mover costs of setting up the factory we likely aren't going to see any series production of the type. This is even more complicated now as sanctions severely limits Russia's access to high quality automated tools for the unbuilt factory line plus the immediate need to replace large quantities of tanks lost in the war causing them to invest even more into current production models and new upgrade packages for older types.
Funny but probably not true.
@@rwaitt14153 Yeah Russia really screwed up with manufacturing. Glad the US and allies are looking into their manufacturing basis for weapons. You simply cannot make some components without a huge chain of suppliers who specialize in doing X for those to make Y which goes into Z. Wonder how many companies are involved in an F 35.
Chips are obviously the big one. ASLM, TSMC, Carls Zeiss(spelling a german mirror manufacturer) are just a handful off the top of my head to make the newest chips.
It’s hard fear a tank, crewed by individuals who didn’t realise the handbrake was on. 😂😂😂😂😂
@@localdude3702 yes because that needs testing 😂
Just before the Gulf War, we were told to fear the awesome T-72. A hundred hours into it, I just felt sorry for them.
FUNNY HOW 🤔 D DAY VETERANS BATTLE OF THE BULGE VETERANS RAN AWAY FROM NORTH KOREAN T34-85, AT TASKFORCE SMITH🤣
For those wondering, the account above me is a bot, they didn’t even bother giving it a proper username or pfp.
D-day and Ardennes veterans? The only division in both the British and US armed forces that served in both korea and either of those two battles they mentioned was the 2nd Infantry division, the unit of Task Force Smith was comprised of elements of the 25th Infantry division, not the 2nd. And either way they were assigned to conduct a rearguard action, which meant you were delaying the enemy forces and plan to retreat, if anything they ran too late since they were supposed to delay the North Koreans and not fight them so no they were not the veterans you were talking about they were rather unmotivated and underfunded troops of 540 men DELAYING 5000 North Koreans while having no tanks of their own so running away is nothing worth laughing about
Anyways I appreciate the learning opportunity that this comment provided me despite it obviously being typed under 30 seconds and posted without any fact-checking or spell-checking, evident by other low-effort comments this same account posts. They are using emojis and all caps to bring maximize emotion and minimize facts which is a common misinformation tactic as info is easy to check, but emotions are easily manipulated and often emotions are stronger than facts.
I mean to be fair you barely faced any T72s seeing as almost 90% of the Iraqi tank force were far older T models and even then they also used far far outdated rounds since the soviets didn't share any of the modern ammunition used on the T72
and the T72s there were, were mostly all Iraqi made and used tank sights from the 40s, barely any were soviet madeand
@@nicholasbrown668 You're absolutely right. My unit's vehicles were unable to keep up with the armor. This was fine in Germany, where the battle plan was for an orderly retreat, but the lightning advance was just too much for them. So by the time we saw any Iraqi equipment, it was in pieces and on fire.
You know things are bad when the most terrifying thing the enemy can throw at you is an aging tank that can get picked apart by an IFV.
The building of the T-14 is taking nearly as long as capturing Bakhmut
The only difference being that there are more Russians involved in trying to capture Bakhmut. But like the T14, it still hasn't worked out as the Russians intended......
Apparently this thing is about as fearsome and reliable as their Aircraft Carrier. Another paper tiger from the nation that created the Potemkin village.
Complete with having to have a tow vehicle accompany it.
@@marka4891 haven't seen one spontaneously combust yet
@@marka4891 Just like the Aircraft Carrier! A new Russian tradition!
@@danielvandersall6756atleast the tow boat is a reliable and actually useful piece of equipment tho. Whoever designed them deserves a medal
@@AT-AT26As good a reason for the Russian Medal of Honor as any other invention.
Ah the Armata. The Duke Nukem Forever of military equipment.
@@Nachomansupreme Every nation is constantly looking for a new tank, but for most of them it's too early to be shown. But such projects like Abrams X and Panther are already publicly known as well.
@Meat Salad Maybe. However, how many Armatas have been produced so far since production started in 2015/2016? So far, not even 40 low quantity production tanks have been delivered. In the first production run of the M1 the US produced 110 in six years. If I take 2016 to 2022 for Russia, it's not even a third of that. So... either sanctions are worse than Russia's would admit or there are serious production problems.
And before you're going to say: you don't know what you're talking about. Educate me with some facts and not with empty one liners. Prove you're no state backed Russia troll but an actual person who wants to actually enlighten people.
Edit: spelling
@@jackkurze2618 I agree plus wanna add why is Russia so keen on selling their latest high tech weapon system? Because they dont have the money to produce it without outside investment. USA dont sell F22 even so countries certainly would buy them. You sell good stuff but not your best stuff. You only do that if you are really desperate.
@Meat Salad The Armata isn't "in production", though. They've only got prototypes.
@@RedXlV Technically it is in production currently. Well, limited production at least. Not really sure how long until it will go full swing with it.
The biggest issue facing the T14 is the thermals and cameras it needs to perform like a modern tank aren't made in Russia. They were buying them from France before the war, but sanctions have made them incredibly difficult to get. The only ones they have were already in the country before the war.
I think they're using limited stocks to upgrade alot of older tanks rather than build a small number of T14s.
Those thermals are actually French Gen 2 thermals; which are actually available on the open market and actually pale in comparison to some modern drones that a civilian with $1000 dollars could buy.
So even the systems Russia was using were already phased out of France's military years ago.
@@strategicperson95In recent times there have been optics that surpassed French sights that are domestically produced in Russia... They're incredibly costly, though near unmatched worldwide
The A-85-3 fitted to the T-14 Armata is a turbo diesel engine. The only Russian tank fitted with a gas turbine (similar to the American M1 Abrams) was the T-80.
Which probably is a mistake. Diesel is pretty good, it is easier to transport and has more energy per quantity. That's why the german tanks use diesel.
Believe it or not, it actually is a Russian made reversed engineered engine,from the engine of the WW2 Porsche Tiger tank. Yes the notoriously unreliable engine.
I think it also be hard to also point out that every Russian tank, except for some T-80 and 64 models, are actually using engines that are based on the same one used on the Bt-7 and T-34 series of tanks from WW2 as well.
@@strategicperson95 the old reliable Kharkiv V2 V12 engine
@@strategicperson95 daddy LazerPig approves.
@@strategicperson95Jesus another idiot who feel for Lazerpig
It is smart that it carries a pair of tow cables. It certainly will need them, even for a Moscow parade it seems.
But it didnt breakdown in the parade. The new, clueless driver set the parking brake or some crap.
@@CMDRFandragon said the Russian Army press release, oh wait 😮
@@CMDRFandragon The quality of russian soldiers...
@@CMDRFandragon "It is better for everyone to think we are so inept as to put a driver completely unable to drive the tank into our newest top of the line tank at the moment of its unveiling in a major public parade which caused it massive public humiliation than to have people think the tank breaks down"
Real Vatnik logic
@@MsZeeZed Well, I mean, the parking brake being set would explain why they couldnt even tow it and it just sat there. No doubt theres propaganda everywhere, but idk, a set brake seems logical in that instance. Otherwise they coulda at least towed it away.
The modern day MiG 25. Something that Russian propaganda pushes and insists they have numerous examples of ready for combat… yet something that is never seen in conflicts despite Russia needing every last piece of armor they can get right now. It likely only exists in very few numbers and likely isn’t nearly as good as they say it is.
SU-57 is probably the single most egregious example of what you just said.
@@vsGoliath96 Yes, India backed out of the Su57 despite having invested in it. Says alot.
It is not necessary because Russia/Soviets have not been involved in any major conflicts for a long time.
The kind of weapons that are more in production and demand are things like RPGs,atgms,ak47s and sam systems for countering US insurgencies and wars....
@@jont2576 if they don’t need it then why are they sending tanks into Ukraine
that were obsolete in the 1970’s? Do the 1970’s era tanks do better at resisting a Javelin missile hit? Because the newer ones like the T-90 sure as hell don’t seem to do very well. You don’t normally add statistical armor to a tank that supposedly is impervious to modern handheld anti tank weapons yet we are seeing tons of hodge podge cage armor welded to tanks. The cage won’t resist a javelin hit or any sort of modern tandem charge hit at all… so it’s strictly there for helping resist older shape charges like rpg-7’s. Why do they need to add cages to help resist an rpg-7 if the tank is supposed to be pretty much impenetrable against modern dual charged warheads?
@@vsGoliath96 with its prestigious and lengthy record of actual combat service? Oh, wait… it has barely ever seen any combat and has never actually seen air to air combat like it was meant for… let alone air to air combat against another modern fighter jet designed for air superiority. Let’s not mention the fact that there are 11 serial examples of the Su57 in existence. Well… there were 11 serialized examples. Pretty sure there aren’t 11 anymore though. Once again… has a lot of propaganda behind it yet no actual proof to back it up. Nor can they actually hope to build enough to consider it the backbone of their aerial superiority program.
Lazerpigs video gives a good idea how bad this thing really is :D Technically same engine that the good old "Tiger" had, ultra-unreliable, consumer electronics, non-existent active/passive protection, no EV capability, no alternatives if the video feed bonked out. He said it's beautiful nickname "The alibaba tank"
I couldn't find anything about the engine being related to the Porsche engine.
Not that I wouldn't believe it. Maybe I should go back to LPs sources....
The engine claim is indeed iffy
Guys, Russia has already brought to the front an armored vehicle that was released in 1950 and has been in warehouses for many years. Forget the red menace from James Bond
Looks a lot like a perfect paper tiger Turret-tosser.. XD
1:30 - Chapter 1 - The development
5:40 - Chapter 2 - The specs
10:00 - Chapter 3 - Deployment & controversies
14:15 - Chapter 4 - Conclusion
Yeah, especially the one that stuck during the parade and had to be towed - truly “unstoppable” 😂
Or immovable
And the Kremlin immediately switched the bullsh*t machine on, and claimed it was a planned demonstration of towing a military vehicle. Isn't it odd that after decades of Red Square parades, they decide to do a towing demonstration? It's the old commie reflex kicking in. Never admit to any sort of failure or weakness, even if the evidence jumps up and hits you in the nuts, and is there for all to see.....
Could you perhaps make a video about the Saab Gripen jet? It looks interesting.
If he does, lets hope he doesn't put it on Side Projects like he has the Viggen.
@John Jackson surely a relatively cheap, highway takeoff (option), reliable plane would make an interesting video. Ukraine has also asked for them I believe.
To add to the reliability part: it's low maintenance too, about 6000 euros/hour instead of 18000 for f-16 or 25000+ for the f-35.
There is an episode on side projects
Dark Skies has a great video on it 😅
@@hansolowe19 overly expensive fighter short range fighter with low weapon carrying capability. How many countries did buy the Gripen?
So unstoppable we couldn't see it in battle...
You can't destroy that which doesn't exist. It's a 200 IQ move by the ruZZians.
In all seriousness, this Russian military robot is more impressive than the T-14. Boston Dynamics has some serious competition :
ua-cam.com/video/P_CDu1hYXxk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=GrunGlue
Active camouflage technology we swear!
No tank is unstopable.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 A tank that doesn’t exist is, by definition, unstoppable.
@@darylbas8216 Abrams X is much closer to that definition.
The Unstartable Death Machine Still Has A Perfect Record In The Field!
This video does a great job of making it seem like this is a real vehicle that actually exists.
Don't feel bad. It happens to a lot of tanks. Sometimes being on antidepressants makes it hard to perform.
With a remotely controlled tower with no crew, it would require advanced electronics that Russia is not capable of producing.
What would this project look like if it used Western components?
I'm glad I'm not the only one
@Sandro Akabane I don't know much, but apparently the US looked into a tank with a...remotely-operated turret...and the 3 man crew in an... armored capsule in the front hull... In the 90s.
T-14 is so revolutionary guys!
@@TheSchultinator I have seen the Abrams X project with a remotely-operated turret and the 3 man crew in an armored capsule in the front hull In the USA.
I believe that this type of project has a good chance of becoming a reality in the West much sooner than in Russia.
Russia has built some T-14s, but the practicality must be very poor due to the lack of advanced electronic technology.
@Sandro Akabane I was referring to the Tank Test Bed from the 90s.
As interesting as the Abrams X is, I doubt it'll be adopted.
"Look at my new Wunderwaffe, it will be so great and overwhelming, it will strike fear in the heart of our enemies."
And there won't be enough to make a difference. 😁
Indeed. It must surely have come as an earth shattering reality check to Putin, to discover his all conquering, invincible/unstoppable army actually isn't. The humiliation really will have kept him awake at night. This is the army Putin claimed could have boots on the ground in 6 European Capital cities within 48 hours. The only way I see that happening is if he opens a string of footwear outlets in those cities. Putin clearly overestimated both his own capability, and that of his army, many times over.......
If you're going on tank concepts do a video on the abrams x, from my knowledge they have exhibhited a working prototype ( or working components for everything) but it's not going into production because it's not yet required. (From what I understand they mostly did this to prove that they could actually build a tank beyond the capabilities of what the Russians even imagined)
The Abrams X is the “oh. You think the T-14 is an accomplishment? Hold my beer”
Back when we were locked away in our intelligence modules with nothing to do but hone up on available fascinating info. one of the things we came across again and again on new Warsaw pact equipment is not combat or production information but will it make it through the May day Red Square test. In the back streets were lined up recovery vehicles which in the Soviet days these even included teams of draft horses to haul embarrassments "out of square". They were more reliable than the tractors and cranes which also broke down. There was an old saying that Russia runs on Alcohol and when that runs out, nothing moves. As can be seen it is that in Russia the only thing that has changed is the appearance of change.
The idea of using a universal chassis is great to simplify maintenance and repairs. If you have a broken down tank, you can just swap out the broken part from something less important like an APC. And I like having the tank not be just one cramped interior space, but, as you said, “we’ll believe it when we see it”
yeah but in russia place its just propaganda. corruption is to much
There have been several prototypes like this in the west. With both 2 and 3 man crew with fully automated turret. But the idea have always been abounded. I don´t know why, but i kind of think when some of the project have been fairly well developed, still have been totally aboundand. Its almost like there is a not obvious drawback that they don´t want to talk about.
Of cause IFV regularly have unnamed turrets. My guess is that one of the issue is ammunition handling.
For instance. Archer sort of have a unmand turret, but it can only shoot 21 shells.
@@MRsolidcolor It's honestly an amazing concept... but the Russian government and military-industrial complex aren't particularly competent
@@matsv201 The Pima IFV has an unmanned turret. Works well. Puma had some software issues with its network centric software which shares targeting and sensor data across other pumas and infantry but the turret works well. Both Abrams XM1 and Panther KF51 can withdraw the crew into the hull. Lots of good ideas in T14. Some will be out of date before fielded such as the APS which offers frontal arc protection only.
@@williamzk9083 but a IFV use a autocanon, not a auto loader (there actually exist 120mm autocanons.. those are huge)
After this piece of equipment was tacked on to the end of the Age of Tanks documentary I have been curious to learn more. Once again Simon reaches into the knowledge-craving centers of my brain and extracts exactly what I didn't even know I wanted. Keep it up, crew of the Good Ship Whistler.
Sack swing much?
That's a good netflix documentary. I don't agree with the Iraqui commander's assesment there that tanks are obselete, as Ukraine used it in their counter offensive last year which won back lots of land.
@@Darth-Claw-Killflex 💩🤡
@@shaider1982 agreed. Russophiles always have paper thin excuses like "the domestic models are better" but the Russians rarely get better use out of them. It was the same with the T34: the Russians got curbed stomped when they didn't have a tactical edge to tip the balance in their favor and after the war they dumped the tanks on the open market and in allied countries and when those got shit canned in the rare occasions they faced other tanks there were people making the same excuse then, so those were mainly used to fight rebels and protestors. Doesn't help that ruddia consistently lies about all their equipments specs and things almost never performe as claimed
Thank you.
The dichotomy of the T14 is that it’s a tank that’s focused on crew survivability. This was a very different philosophy for the Russian Army considering the design of its previous vehicles.
The technology in the tank isn’t anything that can’t be put in or is already present in modern western tank designs.
The way that the Russian Army deploys their tanks in the Ukraine shows very clearly why they need to increase crew survival. The biggest problem though with this tactic is that it would take a higher number of tanks produced since the surviving crew will need a replacement tank for the entire concept to work.
It's gun, fire control equipment, munitions are all from the T90M
No. Russians just need to stop wanting to be liked by others.
Russians need to stop listening to other people's opinions, ignore opinions about themselves.
Russians need to start feeling sorry for their own people, stop feeling sorry for strangers.
Russians need to take an example from the United States, democratic bombs, double standards,...........
Then it will be possible to drive a t34 from the time of 1945, which will be enough for all needs.
Isn't the main design of the t14 still similar to the current death trap tanks
@@BibEvgen and when did the USA use Pershings in the Gulf War? The analogy doesn't work.
@@user-cj9jk1pd4g I corrected the text above.
The tanks that can't be stopped, or started.
Simon, you realy need someone who speaks russian when your team does the research for the videos. There are a number of very interesting materials about T14 in russian writen by their war experts. They explain in detail all the problems with this tank. Like the completely new engine design that cannot be repaired in the field. And cannot even be changed now because the T14 was built around the new engine and gear box. No spare part for the tank because it has to many new part that you cannot just take from older tanks. The radar that is so powerful that it actually makes this tank a very easily identifiable target. And the list of its fault goes on and on and on...
Traitor.
That last part is pretty interesting. You don't hear about powerful radar being a detriment to anything but submarines. Guess there is such a thing as too much power. Either that or the Russians really think the tank is invincible and that that is not a problem (which of course nothing is)
@@EngineerOfChaos Having a massive radar sig could make these things incredibly easy to locate with EWAR assets, or if they give off enough radiation could even make them targets for HARMs or similar, which is absolutely hilarious to me.
@@anxietygamingactual6554 Is there a safe limit for radar energy that would make it undetectable in the field? My understanding was that modern sensors can see any practical radar, big or small.
@@jmi5969 There is no "safe" limit for radar power that would make it undetectable. There's only how much risk you're willing to take to get a scan.
Imagine you're out at night playing tag, or hide and seek, or whatever, with a friend, and your friend has a flashlight to search for you with.
There's no point at which you switch from being 100% sure that there's nothing there, to being 100% sure your friend is there. If they're far away, you might see a pinprick of light or maybe some general brightness. it might be your friend, or it might just be moonlight reflecting off a shiny rock or something. As the flashlight gets closer, and it's more obviously different from the environment, you become more sure that it actually is your friend with the flashlight. Radar works the same way. It's not a binary yes/no thing. It's, how sure are you that signal is a radar and not just random environmental noise.
There are strategies you can use to reduce the chance that your radar is detected, for example, quickly hopping frequencies so that RWRs have less information to work with, but those strategies have their own counters, for example, modern RWRs can look at multiple frequencies simultaneously, so a frequency hopping radar would be noticed.
If you're operating the radar, there's no way to know for sure whether or not your signal can be detected or not. You'd have to evaluate your expected opponent's capabilities, balance that with how important it is to get a radar scan of the situation vs, for example, just searching with passive sensors like IR, and then make the call on a case by case basis.
There are less than 25 of these things in the world, total. So even if it was invisible and could fly, it wouldn't exactly be game changer.
Well, it certainly is invisible.
50-100
@@AbuBakr-gm6bf And why dont they use it in combat? Do they think it would be not fair?
@@barlauch9292 it depend on wich military region they are sent if they belong to the central military districts in don't think that they woul be deployed in Ukraine
The maximum seen at once has been 7, at the introduction parade.
There has been extensive promo footage produced over the years. If more had been built, they wouldn't have be shy about showing them.
Does it have an ejection seat like the T-72?
It always makes me smile when I see that little Russian fella flying through the air. Its just a shame they dont issue the tank commanders parachutes.
Lazerpig has a great video on the T-14.
The Armata is something the west would fear, in the 90's.
That propaganda
@@hi-re2wp lmao
"Lazerpig" and "Great Video"
...You're joking
@@TheArcticFoxxo the alternative being RT? Lmao
@@Pottan23 What?
A nice little pipe dream Putin once had, when he used to believe he had the second best military in the world. Before he discovered his people actually had a magnificent fleet of mega-yachts.
To be fair those yachts look truly magnificent.
he still has the second best military .......... in Ukraine
1:24 the development
5:38 the specs
9:54 development and controversies
14:12 conclusion
I agree
ty
And?
There's a name for apple polishers like you...
@@bazzakeegan2243 I ask you the same. And?
It will be fun to see how high these turrets can fly.
Hiya, it has probably already been pointed out, but the BMPT Terminator is built on the T-72 hull. Just count the roadwheels of the vehicle at t9:52 and you'll clearly see that it is a T-72 hull, with only six roadwheels, compared to the Amarta, which has seven.
There almost certainly will be an Amarta variant of the Terminator (designated the BMOP), but these have yet to see the light of day, especially in Ukraine.
Wrong, BMPT Terminator is built on a modified T-90 hull. BMPT-72 used a t-72 hull but that's basically just a upgrade package marketed for export
@@alexdunphy3716 Thanks for this. It has been a while since I served, so my vehicle identification is a bit rusty.
Used to be that you could pick a T-72, but the glacis plate, but now everything has changed with ERA and whatnot.
@@greg.kasarik Buckle down, soldier!
Ukranians knocked out the first Terminator a week or so ago.
May I correct Mr Mega, The tank has been in service for over 5 years, It's a Stealth tank that is why it hasn't been seen.
They only become visible when you destroy one, so the fact we haven’t seen them proves how superior they are.
Idiotic doesn't even scratch the surface.
- Say firepower, Simon
- Fah pah
I hear the T-4 armata comes with a parachute pre-installed in the turret so it can land gracefully after getting blown off the tank.
I heard that the reason the Armata stopped was because the driver accidentally activated the handbrake and didn’t know how to deactivate it because they weren’t properly trained on how to use the tank. Which is equally funny 😆
Official explanation was, IIRC, basically "we totally meant to do that". They wanted to do a towing demonstration of a tank helping out another tank.
You actually knew the reason, the first westerner I've seen with knowledge of this. He was a conscript by the way, they don't have access anymore only commissioned soldiers do since the incident.
He dropped his cigarette and bent down to pick it up and knocked over the vodka onto computer chips
@@trevortaylor5501 you really think they would give such precious high tech weapons to the hands of a conscript? It is an obvious cover for technical defect. And an early prototype are bound to have those.
@@nihalbhandary162 Yes they would give these tanks to conscripts for a parade...why not? FFS the mobilised soldiers have been seen training on the newest mods of T-90M. There was no defect, a UVZ official walked to the tank, released the brake and off it went on its own power.
The nooks and crannies and odd shape of the turret seem like great places to aim for.
Most of the turret is a mix of dust cover and shaping to make it harder to spot the tank - the actual mechanicals take up a lot less space. The T-95 and the US equivalent test tanks are good examples of roughly what you will see underneath (without all the additional sensors and components being mounted).
The smoke launchers between the hull and the turret seem like a good place to aim..
@@mattalibozek7258 agreed.
@@dapprmanThe T-95 isn't really... The outer shell of the turret is visible, yes, but things like the 2A42 beef up the profile a LOT
I love how in about 80-90% videos it’s seen spinning
Russia must be proud about its spinning tank
The T-14 Armata, a combat platform that never fails to strike fear and anguish in the people who are tasked to crew them!
Still the best tank
I just realized that this channel has yet to do a video on the M1 Abrams. Considering we'll probably see them in Ukraine this year that would be an interesting video. I heard the development was a bit of a mess (shocking I know).
Abrams being sent to Ukraine will not have the highly classified stuff like uranium armour or the uranium armour piercing darts.
@@davidelliott5843 and he wasn't talking about those, I believe. I could be wrong but oh well.
@@davidelliott5843 I wouldn't expect highly classified materials to be sent to a foreign country that isn't even technically an ally. However, depleted uranium is far from classified, and Russia uses it themselves (same with the Chinese).
Ukraine likely won't be getting the most modernized versions of the M1 Abrams, but that doesn't change my belief that it would make an interesting video for the channel.
I still think Ukraine wanting them is a mistake. They need a hell of a lot more maintenance than other tanks and a lot more specialised maintenance at that. The M1 is a great tank, no doubt, but it's not that much better than other designs and I don't think the increased pressure it will put on Ukrainian logistics is worth it.
@Shaun They would be getting Abrams with export armor to substitute for DU armor and round would be non DU but export rounds with Tungsten
It doesn't matter how good it is if they don't have any or are scared to use the few that they have.
Thank you I enjoyed this video a lot 😊
Your writer deserves a raise bro their writing is incredible i just got bored to death from 2 other youtubers making similar videos like this forcusing on military i have actualy ben watching you for a verry long time havnt watched most of your videos but i gotta say your definitely ahead man just wanted to thankyou for being such a good content creator also i love how you cover whats happening in ukraine im disappointed in people with platforms who have never mentioned it
The T-14 Armata has the latest State-of-the-Art Stealth technology. It's completely invisible in fact and will never be seen on a battlefield.
Fantastic looking fantasy 1 /1 scale model kit.
My favorite UA-cam personality, Mr. Simon Whistler. Do you have a list of all of your channels?
GREAT load of targeting point on those turretsa1 :-D :-D :-D
If they're struggling (and they really are) to adequately maintain current armoured vehicles then I think that the development of new MBT's will be on the back burner
Absloutley agree
maintain? they barely have any tanks left
@@MoonMage67 the only tanks they have left are tanks from household water boilers
Yeah there's probably a note left on the tanks drivers seat which advises the Ukrainians to let the engine heat up before use
Our media has really done us wrong by not mentioning the numbers involved. One fourth of Russia's military, without drafting, is a larger number of people then Ukraine's entire adult population.
Defense contractors gotta make that cash though.
There is a fundamental flaw with the T-14;
If the remotely operated turret breaks, there’s (to my knowledge) no manual controls. In manned turrets, there are manual traverse and elevation cranks, and a backup telescopic sight if the electrics fail. In the T-14, there’s no real way to manually control the turret if something fails.
The fundamental flaw is that they cannot produce it in quantity.
The Fundamental flaw is that its being built in Russia.
So you’re suggesting an EMP/ satellite strike rendering them useless.
@@brianwilges7780 even just a radio blackout from the sun could do it
@@archersfriend5900 Its like what happened with T-44. It was ready for production, but the already fine-tuned production line for T-34 was of more importance. Right now the role of fine-tuned production line is given to T-90M
Rumors say that once the " terminator 3" is forced to retreat you can hear it say " I'll be back"
What would the original Ramka say?
“It’s the best tank ever!”
“Source?”
“Trust me comrade.”
The Unending Ruble Machine.
Come on Lazerpig! Do the vid.
Hooha!!
UA-camr Lazerpig did a deeper dive into T-14 a little while ago.
Lazerpig’s take on this was a work of art.
I would like to clarify there are no BMPT Terminator 3's at all in the Ukraine it is only the BMPT Terminator 2's which are based off of the T-72 series tanks currently fighting in the Ukraine. Otherwise great video
No there is only one BMPT "Terminator" which uses a modified t-90 hull. Then there is the BMPT-72 which is the BMPT turret fitted to a t-72 hull which was marketed as an upgrade option to countries who operate old t-72s. Sometimes BMPT-72 is called "terminator 2" by mistake
@@alexdunphy3716 so the BMPT uses the T-72 hull. the T-90 is a T-72B3 hull with a different turret and the BMPT-2-T72 use a upgraded T-72 hull. but lets not argue semantics
Anyway, the thing has a useless twin cannon that wobbles like a jelly when fired. You can't hit anything with it.
If 12km is considered short range, does that make the FGM-148 Javelin a melee weapon?
I mean you technically could swing a javeline on an unsuspecting enemy's head. Might not kill them, but will still do harm.
It's not really 12km
The tank with an engine descended from the famously unreliable engine of the Tiger P? The engine that was developed into a pumping engine that was a commercial flop due to unreliability and directly developed from that pumping engine?
the engine that is called a Gas Turbine in this video?
@@HorstEwald It absolutely does NOT have a gas turbine engine. It has a copy of a copy of the Porche 212 engine. It has an x cylinder configuration and no other engine will fit it.
@@shawn97006 I know. I watch lazerpig as well
I trust your reporting, and I’ve been watching since the top-10 era. Keep it up.
There are aspects of this vehicle that are good and innovative like the armored crew capsule and unmanned turret. But it still has its roots in a 90s project.
Which makes it pretty much the newest production model on the market.
80's. It's roots are in Soviet next gens MBT prototypes that were ready for trials somewhere around...1990-1991
Every significant concept was tried in previous development tanks. Most were obvious but simply "before their time".
The idea of a sealed crew capsule has been repeatedly rejected because of poor situational awareness. It could happen someday, but only with improved sensors. Multi-spectral integration could make a virtual view superior to a bare eyeball. Integrating active and passive radar, thermal, UV, laser return, edge enhancement and shape detection, computational object modeling etc would be a game changer. But the Russians are the last ones with the technology to make that happen.
Thinking beyond the detailed technology, if everything is based on sensors, what is the value of a in-hull crew? The concept literally designs itself out of a purpose. It make sense with traditional manual control, but that is a constraint that wasn't questioned.
Another problem for the T-14 is that it would be *super* emembarrassing to lose a tank that costs several million $ to an ATGM that costs about $250k or a drone that costs even less. Particularly since Russua desperately needs foreign buyers for the T14.
Each tank in the world cost several millions of dollars and can be destroy by atgm or drone or artillery they are not made from vibranium from wakanda they are just tanks made of steel
Imagine one breaks down, or gets captured, it will be in a shipping container to the US in weeks.
There's some healthy debate about the future of Main Battle Tanks in general given their increasing cost and the wider availability of current gen anti-tank systems. UA-camr (and former anti-tank infantryman) Ryan McBeth refers to it as the "Age of the Suicidal Microchip." Better man-portable weapons systems, drones, and increasingly precise long-range artillery mean that soon the MBT may no longer be the point of the spear when it comes to ground combat, so why invest all that money in them?
@@lukedodson3267 tbh, I’m someone who works in the microchip industry and I’m not particularly aware of any major advancements in chip technology in the last 20 years. Some shits gotten smaller, and a bit cheaper, but there haven’t been any new features or technologies that have blown me away. We spend most of our intellectual capacity on internet software systems, not microchips, and believe me theres a massive difference
@@Blackreaper95days*
I've been complaining about Simon's narration for a few years now, saying that I will only watch one of his videos if it's a subject I am especially interested in. This is one of those subjects so I gave it a try. I think this is a bit different narration style and, in my opinion, a better one. Thumbs up.
you should review other fictional projects like the Star Destroyer
Please do the Abrams X Collectors edition.
This comment is pretty good. :)
The platinum skin is pretty sweet. it's a pretty rare drop though, even the US Army hasn't collected one
They are waiting for the GOTY edition
But there is still so much to learn about how incompetent Putin is.
The awesome thing about the Abram X is that you can either have it built from scratch or you can upgrade existing Abrams to its specifications. So you can turn your base Abrams premium model into a collectors piece :P.
Honestly the AbramsX is what the Russian T-14 wants to be but in this case actually works and is used by experienced crews. .
By far the best video I have seen from this channel. I’m glad I never completely gave up on this channel and kept giving it a shot from time to time. Good job everyone over @Megaprojects thank you!
The star of Russian ingenuity. The tank that had to be towed out of Red Square when it was introduced.
I bet they will burn just as well as the T-90 in Ukraine.
Probably the stealthiest tank ever made not a single drone ever saw or detected it.
I believe It's indeed very deadly....if you're the crew of this tank. 😅
Hi Simon, I think the Armata can be put into the same category as the Russian SU-57 Felon. India threw $$ at Russia as a co-developer but when they did the math and realised it wasn't as good as advertised they pulled out. I think this tank is the same. Even if it and the SU-57 were as good as Russia claims how could they build them with all of the sanctions imposed by the west. They cant even build modern cars anymore.
David Palmer - The Armata should have become Russia's main MBT and between 2015-20 2000 should have been produced. In reality, 2023 only prototypes exist.
1. Russia could never build modern cars, without western input. 2. SU-57 was a failed attempt to generate foriegn income 3. Even without sanctions, Tussia does not have the capacity to build modern anything
Su-57 is being used in Ukraine. No one denies this...
One of the biggest problems is that Russia cannot produce modern microchips.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 riiiight. You mind providing some evidence of its actual use in Ukraine? I think you won't and are simply a lying Kremlin bot.
Anyone have any video of this tank shooting while moving?
(Bonus points if you can find a video of it shooting while not crawling along a gravel path)
there was some video of T-14 inside, the touch screens are straight from 2014 as the T-14 name suggests, laggy as hell and wont easily respond to touch. Also the whole thing is operated via cameras which is pretty crappy if they get mud on them then they can only see forwards trough the view ports XD
I love how you say "with the option of" sounds like we are in the car dealership of Tanks r us :)
Also you gotta remember that the T-14 has S-2500 time traveling missiles and co-axial Su-357 stealth fighters😂. 9:48 Did they seriously call a tank a terminator 3?! They should have called it the "Under Siege 3: Under Stephen Segal"😂
Maybe they meant Terminated 3?
Segal is a fan of Mr Putin so I'd go with Under Siege3 🙂
A combat ready model has never been confirmed to have gone faster then 30ish MPH and didn’t mention that the engine is very unreliable and a design dating to WW2. Which is important since the entire tank was built around the small tank engine. It can’t fit any other engine without extreme design changes. Laserpig has a pretty good video on this tank.
He that is fake news
another person who watched lazerpigs video, and fell for his BS lmao
Image pin is really correct - because it's impossible to stop thing that cannot move.
It's a translation error. Unstoppable in Russian means they forgot to install an off button
MAKE AN EPISODE ON THE OVERSEAS HWY 7 MILE BRIDGE PLEEEEEEASE
Just a nice target for Javelin missiles.
NATO ran out of Javelins keep dreaming🤣
@@danielmlinar4892 You are WRONG. Ukraine has many on hand. In addition, USA has just signed a new contract for Javelin production of a couple of thousand per month.
Furthermore, Ukraine now has MODERN main battle tanks that can smash the T-14 into scrap metal with kinetic energy rounds.
Finally, Ukraine has many NLAW missiles in stock.
If Russia dares to put T-14 junkers on the front line, they will be burned out hulks in minutes.
You are obviously a Russian troll.
The driver put the tanks emergency brake on and didn’t know how to release it lol
The T-14 Armata should be named nickname "Yeti". Why? Because all heard about it and none seen it.
As scarce as sightings of the T-14 are maybe they should change its name to Sasquatch.
It’s so unstoppable it’s already stopped
At least the M1 Abrams actually exists. So far the T-14 is pretty much vaporware.
M1 is a T-72 equivalent though
except thst the Abrams wiped the floor with the T72 and the T80 in both Desert Storm abd the Iraq War. To the point where both Russia and China had to re-think their defense strategy. Zero lost to enemy fire and its not like the Iraqis weren't trying.
@@vic5015 Sure sure, if taking out Polish made T-72 is an accomplishment than Russians are not far behind USA these days. There is a reason why Poland stopped making tanks.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 actually, the USSR's biggest tank factory was in the Ukranians SSR. Which is a *big* part of the problem Russia now has.
@@vic5015 That factory these days can't even produce 1 tank per month for the last 30 years or so. In any case, Iraq had mostly Polish T-72....same ones that were shipped to Ukraine lol
This should have been sponsored by War Thunder... the only place the T-14 has any chance of actually doing any fighting!
I remember at least one that stopped pretty comprehensively in the Red Square Parade.
One of the more useful pieces of equipment supplied by the Lizard Overlords. Allegedly.
You bring shame on all those that (unfortunately) know you.
T-14 seems to be quite a vulnerable target. Its thickest armor is concentrated in the crew capsule while the turret has little to no armor compared to the majority of other tank designs. Sure, it wouldn't launch the turret into space killing the crew, but a turret hit with any relatively modern APFSDS would definitely render it out of action.
That's just your opinion any evidence what you saying about........?
@@carlosgamarrath244 remote controlled. The top of any tank has lighter armour and ATGM like the Javelin has the capability of hitting the target from the top so if it penetrates the top it could possibly hit any important electronic components that can easily render the turret inoperational.. sure it wouldn't make the tank crew a part of the airforce for a while but the tank sure would need to retreat for repairs.
@@carlosgamarrath244 I'm not the only one criticizing T-14 for its turret protection. The bulk of it is just a relatively thin steel cover, you can google how it looks without it. There's simply no space for any composite armor. Sure, russia claims its active protection system can intercept even APFSDS but it wouldn't be able to affect it that much. AP systems are generally effective against slower AT missiles and lower speed HEAT projectiles, but not against kinetic energy penetrators.
A turret hit with any relatively modern APFSDS would definitely render out of action any tank on the battlefield...
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 Not necessarily. Modern composite armor packages protect the turret pretty well from APFSDS, at least from the front. That's why both modern guns and APFSDS are getting longer (like DM 53 with its 850mm of penetration). T-14's turret can be penetrated by something like DM 23 (400mm pen.) or even DM13 (380mm pen.)
The Terminator on the picture you posted is based on the T-72, not the T-14! How could you make such a mistake?!
We poles were making fun of our own PL-01 which was just a concept, that it is so stealthy that noone knows where it is... But damn... Armata is actually a existing tank that noone knows where it is.