You have just described the process of using NATO and US tanks by Ukraine, they just stand in the rear and sometimes roll out to make a couple of shots.
@@user-su6ts9wm1hBrother what?? I just know you’re a Russia main because the Leo turret is pretty much on par with any top tier Russian turret armor. If u ever wanna know how bad russia mains are at aiming for weak spots since they’re so used to their op tanks just play the Sweden tree t90.
It still has Monolith though. The problem is, its only the hull which is acceptable since it was supposed to be turned into an IFV or even SPAAG since its a Universal Platform. The thing is, its probably like the T-15 Armata and lacks turret armor.
@@pilotmanpaul logically speaking, the reason why the turret does not have alot of armour is because the crew is stored in the hull. the turret is also small, and as mentioned in the video the only thing damagable is the cannon.
@@ILoveforGames that’s pretty stupid since the Canon is your main offensive weapon in a tank. You need to protect it more than perhaps some of the other areas of the tank.
& you will see Armata on his paper skills onely in vidéogames. Since it broke all the time can't fire withou électronic fail. The crew can't solve this issue on the batlefield.
Well to be fair, a lot of top tier tanks aren't even being produced yet, let alone used in active service lol. Take Challenger 3 and Strv 122+ for example
Knowing gaijin, they will fill the void in the hull with 1m of composite, make the malakit 1200mm effective against KE and CE, a 2 2,5second autoloader and give the APS 2 extra charges and a 0.1microsecond reaction time
@u2beuser714 problem is lazerpig is a confirmed ukrainian propagandist and was debunked numerous times (he literally said it himself) so it's hard to tell when he's just guessing or actually knows lmao, terrible credibility. meanwhile red-effect goes off currently known information
you do not know nothing, because 1/3 of tanks weight is turret even more on western tank. with no man in it weight of turret is much smaller. Still T-14 is over 50 tones, so yeah it has good armor protection....
Yes, because this guy has all the classified specs. You saw one image of the innermost layer of a multi layered hull and well... thats it, the T14 is in fact the weakest tank ever made 🤷🏽♀️
@@lordgammadonkaargon2830This is the mass of the normal KF-51 (the one with the manned turret), we still don't know the mass of the KF-51U (the one with the remote turret).
@@lordgammadonkaargon2830 Both the KF-51-U with the unmanned turret and the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 with unmanned turret. Both are still close to 60 tons with unmanned turrets so theoretically these have the largest weight reserves for armor.
Any future tank design has to incorporate electronic attack and defense in addition to anti air capacity. Failure to incorporate this will result in a $200 FPC drone blowing up your fuel tanks
The future of conventional warfare will still be combined arms warfare with specialized drone units made for specific offensive and defensive capabilities. Tanks in the future won't need protection from drones as there will be a special drone for jamming enemy drone swarms with electronic warfare. There is one thing to understand about this type of conventional warfare. It only works when it's a nuclear power fighting one without nuclear weapons or two powers without nuclear weapons fighting one another. If two nuclear powers go to war, this strategy is null and void because no one will bother with a conventional war that will end up in a nuclear war so they'll attempt a first strike with nuclear weapons.
@P3RF3CTD3ATH The only issue with that is MAD. Even if they get a nuke launched the opposing force will launch their nuclear arsenal in retaliation, resulting in both parties being annihilated in the end.
1:32 There's an incident of a Bradley using its autocannon vs T-72 during Desert Storm. It wasn't more than an effective distraction w/HE until the Wingman completed a reload drill on the TOW system (*IIRC).
At this point we have seen several instances of various autocannons used against tanks in Ukraine (I would say more instances than actual tank vs. tank fights) and every time they had been a real threat for the tank. I can only imagine what an Otomatic-like 76mm autoacannon could have done.
he was firing at the turret front and bounced off. the thing of the drohnes is : hollow charges with a penetrationpower of over 100mm steel hitting at turret tops or backs with armor of 40mmsteel at max, in case of turret tops its 20-25 mm only
Seems like active protection and fpv drone defence is more important at this point, armour thats just good enough to prevent carastrophic kills so crew can escape and tank cheap enough to allow for easy replacements
The problem is that the T-14 supposedly costs as much as the Abram’s to product, around $8 million per tank. If true, then it’s understandable why one of the reasons given as to why it’s not being made in the quantities promised several times now is the cost of production. 1,000 would be $8 billion. But they would need at least 2,000 over the production run. The problem is that it also means support infrastructure - parts, training, storage, munitions, etc. according to public sources, that equals the amount of cost for the tanks themselves. We would be talking about anywhere from a minimum of $15 billion to over $30 billion. Can they really afford that? Even over years?
You're just overexaggeratig nobody said it is 30 years ahead of anything 😂 But it is true that the Armata is still better than conventional tanks, since the crew has better protection than in any other conventional tanks. But of course that doesn't mean it's invincible or indestructible 😂
Pretty sure Armata is equivalent to SU-57. A propaganda piece that was never intended for production numbers, just something to display on redsquare in the month of May
What do you mean with what budget you think the US is the only one that can just print up money only thing that matters is if countries are willing to use the money, usa is like 35 trillion dollars in debt. I don't even think we can pay the interest off anymore with our GDP
Small note, from what I've seen, the later T14s do appear to have thickened the frontal armour imo. The Era looks fully aligned with the track fenders and there is an overlap of armour on the nose where the angled plates meet. But honestly, it doesn't matter because I still believe these are all pre production models and the overall armour layout could very well change. The important parts in testing at the moment are the hull/suspension/engine and electronics. Lastly, this could well be one of the many tank types produced in limited quantities only to end up with a different vehicle heavily influenced by testing. It could be one of those. What's important about the Armata project is the scope of building many different vehicles with huge number of common parts which will pay dividends long term. Of course...who can read the future, right?
You're right, there are T-14s with a different profile on their upper front plates shown in exhibitions compared to the ones in parades. I'm wondering if they added composite screens much like the Leopard 2A7s.
@@pacianooo3250They can’t afford to build them… They likely never will.. Too much corruption. Like that level = nothing will ever reach full potential. They had better than Armata a few times and squandered that with better economic statuses. So I have low confidence they can make this at all now that the armor is that thin.
Another thing that Red falls into is the missile modle This is just a model, you can change it propertieswithouth changing the model, meaning its form is inconcecuencial. What matter is accuracy of testing and live testing (meaning reality certification) So unless we get to test it or get both the test and live result comparison the test itself is bogus. Not to mention that: Where the heck this info come from? Can we trust it? Can we trust that it wasnt alter in even small details?
@@perfectcell1157 Crimea never belonged to the Ottomans. The Crimean Khanate was a vassal state to the Ottoman Empire, nothing more. The guy who posted the initial comment has no idea what he's talking about.
@@wallachia4797 so what I stretched the actual fact a bit, most people have no idea of. yes while it was strong khanat, ... in the end it was still a puppet state. and ottomans displaying crimea as their own land on maps puts it to end and if you expect comments on internet to be 100% factual then welcome to internet ... have fun
I'm a structural simulation engineer and tbh yes simulation came a long long way. But nothing beats real world testing. Imperfections, manufacturers process defects, and real life conditions can vary from slightly to greatly, so thats to be taken into account.
So, I have a question for you, how much do you believe that the T-14 is a tank to replace the T90s? Russia claimed it was, but all they are doing are building some prototypes and keep testing them, over and over, and the new upgrades, never applied on these prototypes, which is weird, don't you think? It's the same with SU57 no?
Not at all imo, or at least it has to be taken with circumstance. Syrian performance with the T-72M would indicate it to be a fantastic tank that could run circles around the M60 it faced in Isreali service, whereas looking at the Iraq wars it struggled against M60A3s due to the poor training, morale and outdated ammo it was equipped with. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account.
@hansshekelstein9450 Which then, of course, makes things complicated. So instead, most internet armchair experts devolve to comparing publicly available information to publicly available information, as if reality is that black and white.
I believe that Armata will remain not mass produced since RU learned in this war that tanks are very vulnerable to FPV drones and until they figure it out how to deal with FPV, but now I am at the end of the video and Red Effect mentioned this, somewhat.
@@Mrbimmer11 Tiger P used two air cooled engines that were supposed to run generators. Idk what LazerPig was trying to refer to when making that video, but please, don't repeat that or you'll summon RedEffect's "specialist" subscribers and I really don't have time and will to argue with 50 separate serbs, who don't read each others comments. Уже были прецеденты:(
5:35 for the actual answer. It's "we have no clue what the actual armor is". The whole video is just "we kind of figured out an equivalent for the ERA on top of the tank". That's the only tidbit, stretched out over 8 minutes.
And that info is highly doubtful, cause T-14 and its ERA is still in prototype stage, it can have different modification of ERA and hull armor by now, with different protection.
@@paulwilson8061 there are far more lies about Donbass from the russian side than the ukrainian one. People still point at what happened at Odesa today, this is how powerful russian propaganda today
@@dhanu_4539 Well of course, what else are you going to shoot at a tank from a Bradley? They only used the 25mm when they happened across a tank in very low observability conditions and only then to confuse and scare the enemy and keep track of its position
@dhanu_4539 it's 25mm wasn't gonna do the job. It has ATGM got a reason. The TOW was made to give non tank gun carrying units (essentially anything not a tank) a ability to kill a tank.
@@MostlyPennyCat missing the whole point. The active protection system is for the ATGMs the armor us for the 25mm ... You can't just mention both like it's the same thing
With the amount of FPV drones buzzing around I wouldn't be surprised if this program got cancelled in favor of something with much different type of protection. T90M is clearly struggling with it, and Abrams and Chally can't even show up on the battlefield.
@@MostlyPennyCat Is this the newest level of cope for the "Abrams and Challengers superior Western technology" folks? Please show me actual proofs of Russian tanks more likely to "vaporise" their crew other than the millions of basic Western pundits on reddit saying 'Russian tanks explode hurdur' based on a select few videos that has been published over the last 3 years. Also news flash, crew members can still "vaporise" (die) even if a tank doesn't explode or burn. So there is literally zero basis for your claim unless you can supply people with well-documented research with statistics to back up your claim.
Intercepting a missile this close to the armor still relies on the armor having enough thickness to deal with malformed jet. 10-20 cm of glass composite would be welcome.
You should totally look into the kinda-redemption arc of the TR-85M1, with the TR-85M1R which was showed at BSDA 2024. It is likely to be accepted into service as an upgrade package for the TR-85M1 first and foremost and even for some of the older TR-85 tanks. I've heard news about the future upgrade plans of 108 tanks, aka 2 battalions worth of them.
It is not a signifikant Upgrade like the Armor or engine its just new electronics. I would like to see the tr-85 Tanks with a turkish new modular turet with 105 mm or 120 mm but asume 105mm is better suitted as 120mm is to powerfull for the Chassis
@@andreilazar2800 Ukrainians have fitted a 125mm gun to a T-55 chassis which is significantly worse than the TR-85 chassis and that still worked. Although you are right, the gun was not upgraded, neither was the armour, but the engine, transmission, tracks and suspension, FCS (with a CITV), LWSLR systems, driver controls, electronics will be upgraded with the M1R package. 108 tanks apparently. I would've done more, since Romania has around 300 tanks in various modifications from TR-85s, M1, M1As etc but whatever, as much as the limited budget allows I guess
@@Brother_Nihilus Romania has in active service 5 tank battalions, each having 54 tanks. Two battalions are equipped with T-55AM/AM2 tanks which is 108 tanks. Other two battalions are equipment with TR-85-800 tanks, which is another 108. And the last battalion is equipped with 54 TR-85M1 Bizonul tanks. In addition there are some claims that Romania has in reserve more than 100 TR-85-800 tanks and some TR-580 tanks, which is enough for two more battalions. But I can't find any evidence that this reserve still exists or if it is in any usable condition and considering that two battalions still operate the older and inferior T-55, there must be a good reason that those newer tanks aren't used.
@mariatoma6582 As I presented earlier in the previous comment, the Romanian army has 5 tank battalions, each having 54 tanks. Romania has bought 54 M1A2R tanks, this in exactly one battalion and these tanks will only be delivered in 2026. While the Romanian Ministry of National Defense has in its agenda to acquire 300 modern MBTs, it lacks the budget for such a significant expense and the modernization of three battalions of the TR-85 tanks could be a shortcut for this achievement.
@@mowabb I didnt eather but i was expecting much more than T90A/T90M values. One thing i was always wondering is how did they make tank of that size and make it well protected while keeping it around 55 tones? Myb there was some advanced composite/ceramic material that allows that? And now turns out that is not the case. Most of the tank is just steel and it's turret is even more vulnerable than older tanks because if APS system fails 1 RPG shot can disable turret while we all saw old tanks surviving multiple fpv/rpg strikes in turret and continuing to work. All new fancy stuff we saw at 2015 victory parade turnd out to be useless for Russian soldier.... Armata family is still not in full scale production and it's armour is nothing special, Kurganets and Boomerang will never go into production, Uran 9 and other armed ugvs are nowhere to be seen so soldiers have to make theyr own robots in the field.... Really disappointing.
@@novinovic298 that's because other tanks have crew and systems in the turret while armata crew is not there and even when turret is diabled the tank will be able to drive home, which is not the case for other tanks where if the turret is disabled it's abandoned (if anyone stays alive)
Now I am kinda glad armata didn't go into full production. It isn't very viable on modern battlefield, I see more potential in T-90M development, as it is possible to fit unmanned turret there as well, but it'd be far better armored
Some additional armor for the turret would be nice. Even thought the turret is a rather small target, it would benefit the tank if the turret could be kept in a working condition for a longer period of time.
@@triage2962 That is my problem with the low turret armoring. The crew is going to be fine, but a tank without a working cannon is basically a worse IFV. If the armor is low, the tank is too easy to disable.
Tanks statistically do not get hit in the turret. Therefore it is overall economical to have lightly armoured unmanned turrets. Tanks statistically don't even engage other armoured vehicles. They are mostly knocked out by mines and artillery. Drones are a recent addition.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Since when? Tanks are statistically hit in the turret a lot, since it's the most exposed part of the tank. fire-and-forget ATGMs are specifically designed to hit the turret (from above). We have seen countless Stugna-P being guided vs. the turrets.
T-14 is irrelevant not because of the armor or the weapons system, but because it used to be cutting edge in 2015, when it had been revealed, and there’s is still nothing resembling its serial production, while modern warfare has evolved drastically since the promise of this tank was titillating.
@@doltBmB Russians chose the wrong APS. Everything protected by a Trophy, or similar "dome" APS, is better protected than the T-14 by now. We have also seen several instances of autocannons vs. tank battles in Ukraine, more than tank vs. tank actually, and the T-14 would have probably fared worse than the old models in those, because the crew might have been safe but, without the turret, disabled by the first few rounds, they couldn't have done much anyway.
@@qZbGmYjS4QusYqv5 Take also into account the very unusual engine configuration (12 cylinders "X" engine). "X" engines have to be designed from a clean sheet, since they are exceedingly rare, and they are extremely hard to do well (that's why they are so rare), but the engine compartment of the Armata is made so that it can't use any other configuration.
redeffect wins giggle of day " not real armor " ..cute ... alas design follows function .. T14 is the center of a AI , mini tank called "sentry" .. plus drones .. plus integrated in a battle group .. Glad the Brits followed your idea .. add weight .. same size engine [ with threats to improve ] ... just switched over smooth bore .. worse .. you sound as you pine for days toe to toe armor ..Queen of battle field ....days gone bye
@@bigfella9034 Where are you dreaming my friend. Outside the footage where a Leo 2A6 shoot at a t-72 which did not penetrated it there is no occurence of tank to tank combat ever happened in ukraine beetwen a western tank and a russian one.
IKR, at least protect it against the A10, and Bradleys, though a giant cope cage plus armour skirts should work against FPV drones, it works for the turtle tanks, which are actually T-62s with steel plate welded onto a frame mounted on the tank.
seems T-14 is an abandon idea anyway , costs too much, I don't think RU will mass produce them, as T-90 is doing the same job for less money. It was an interesting desing though.
It’s interesting. If the turret isn’t well protected, that’s a major problem. We’re being told by defenders of the tank that the turret doesn’t need all that armor as it’s not a manned turret. But that’s wrong. The only purpose a tank has is the ability to throw heavy rounds a fair distance. If the turret is penetrated and the gun is out of commission, then the tank is useless. More than that, the crew is helpless. So, if this is true about the armor, then it’s difficult to understand what the designers were thinking. The new drones just make it even worse.
if your looking for common sense in youtube comments , you wont find it. as for tank itself , we have no idea how it could preform , not likely it will be ever deployed in Ukraine , im not sure if its due flaw/flaws , lack of recourses due sanctions/not produced enough , or they just worried that their new super tank going to be super disaster in ukraine and expensive one.
The sensors, optics and barrel are unprotected on all MBTs. A hit on those is likley and will disable the turret regardless Armor is there primarily to protect the crew. Not getting hit is the main strategy as opposed to surviving hits The Armata's turret is much smaller and less likley to be hit. It can fire hull-down with the crew perfectly safe. There is no need to protect the gun, it would just add more weight
When talking about nafo tanks, the most important aspect is crew survivability. Armata puts lots of attention in focusing on crew survivability, and suddenly the only thing that matters is the cannon. Y'all are laughable.
What if the role of the tank is to snipe other tanks outside of their range? I think that's what the Russians were trying to achieve with this tank so they don't need turret armour.
Doesn't matter if the turret is armored or not. Getting shot there will likely damage or disable FCS and the like. You don't need to penetrate a tank to make it combat ineffective
A few things to be kept in mind: - T14 model 2015 was mostly a technology demonstrator. By 2030, we may have a very different tank, maybe a 152 mm cannon, among some other things as mentioned in an August 2022 report -The Malachit E.R.A. is basically Relikit in principle, with clearly longer (and possibly) thicker plates. While not as powerful as DUPLET, it is clearly easier to manufacture and is much lighter -The turret being thin isn't a bad thing necessarily. It's only a little bigger than a gun mantlet, and the front hull armor is likely a little thicker than on previous models -The APS is good against something like Stugna-P, but not something like Javelin or FPV drones. Most tanks have little protection against them. -The T-14 may be scrapped for an entirely new project, who knows ? If they can't fix the issues.
@@maxmachac9756 If you keep gulping whatever Zelensky's saying, then yes, you might get drunk on this belief, though, by 2030, Russia may have double/triple the people working for the War effort If it lasts that long.
i mean Afghanistan was obvioisly on the recieving end of The Soviet Union and they stil had to leave after 9 years, with MUCH less casualties than in Ukraine and also Sending your ENTIRE Manpower pool as the supposed 2nd largest military in the world to fight a country was taught to be much weaker it does not sound like the Flex you think its is M8.
@@TheGreatGG7oh and also, by 2030 Russia might legitimately run out of Tanks,APCs and IFVs (functional ones that is) if attrition rates keep going so uh, Bayonet charges da?
@@TomoreniusTom tanks don't give birth to other tanks, they are made in factories, their factories are getting bigger by the day. As long as they have them, this is just fantasy. It's Math 101.
Wtf. Its still stupidly good thanks to that Monolith Reactive Armor it has. That thing can be put at 11.7 and still be stupidly good since its so lightweight.
@@pilotmanpaul 0 T14S have seen combat, the T14 was suppose to be this NATO super weapon tank killer but in reality is a pile of shit that would get shit stomped by a Bradley with a TOW system. Red Square is apparently its greatest weakness LOL. Even the Panther would cover greater distances!
I guess in a purely tank-on-tank context it makes sense to go all-or-nothing with the armour and not worry too much about protecting the unmanned turret, though the wimpy ERA is still not ideal. But in the real world, where some Ukrainian reservist might crash a cheap drone into the turret roof and fuck up your main gun, it might not seem like such a great tradeoff anymore.
I wonder how the crew capsule itself is constructed and does it have any additional protection. it's probably just a space in the hull with spall liner but conceivably it could have been built with a separate layer of armor, since it's a relatively small area and protecting the crew should be a priority.
Russia currently has between 14 and 22 SU-57's, in addition these are active in the Ukraine war. Even Ukrainian sources reported that the SU-57's have been used both in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.
@@matfax you cant just copy it and produce what hasnt been tested and approved yet bruh it would be a waste of time and money which an actuall good idea would have been done stop trolling though
We should note the large gaps in the armour simulations. Those gaps could be filled with NERA/NxRA Fillings, like the Reflector Plates in T-72B/T-90 Turret models or like the ones in the Leopard 2Awhatever Hull. Also this video purely focuses on Monolith ERA.
you assumed that the plates are representing the T-14 Armata's armor plates on no bases, that could be a random plates to test the ERA itself not the system as a whole
@@GrindThunderer yes i know...but since the russians keep bragging about armata is next generation tank...just want be sarcastic that even your next generation tank can be penetrated by new same generation tank(KF-51)
They used a 152mm cannon + 30mm machine guns on the T-95 experimental tank, which was canceled in 2010 in favor of T-14. T-14 can also be armed with a 152mm cannon if needed because the design allows it. I think it's too pointlessly overpowered. Old soviet 125mm cannon can easily destroy an Abrams and any tank as this war has shown. NATO standards with 120mm cannon and 7.62mm machine guns are still relevant too. A 130 mm (33 kg) shell will weigh 2.5 times more than a 120 mm (13 kg) shell and this tank will need an autoloader, as even a trained person will have a hard time handling a shell of this size.
“The only thing in the turret that can get damaged is the main gun”. The gun is important, and all the electronics and their wiring in the turret can get damaged. The designers of this tank adopted a warthunder approach against MBTs, “everyone’s using SABOT, so let’s use armor so thin that it will just go right through.”
I mean, Armata is based on a hull, not a turret. The turret was designed to start with to be destroyed. The main element of armata is the capsule that protects the crew.
There are german recovery vehicles based in the leopard hull, doesn't mean the turret was an afterthought on a 2A7. I don't see the point of making a replacement of the T-90 while not giving it the same purpose of the T-90. And with the proliferation of drones no tank currently in service anywhere is capable of effectively defending itself.
@@za_pravdu1943 that would make sense but there is an obvious error with this though. The T-14 like the previous T-72 and T-90, was designed to be manufactured at the Uralvagonzavod factory, while the T-80 was designed to be produced at the Leningrad Kirov Plant and Omsktransmash. This seems to be reinforced by the fact that the Russians are planning to restore the production of the T-80 at Omsktransmash, instead of turning it into another production line for the T-90. In addition the Russians announced that the priority at the Uralvagonzavod factory is to maximize the production of the T-90, instead of changing production to the T-14
Next year will be one decade since the first reveal of the Armata family in 2015. That means this tank will never be in production because of its useless.
T-14 was designed for a fight that Russia is unlikely to ever fight. A head-on equal engagement with the US military. Russia will never have that fight, either because Russia will avoid it like the plague, or if it does happen, the rest of Russia's military won't be enough to make it even. After the cost gets figured in, and fights Russia can reasonably win, T-14 is DOA. Now, some parts of T-14 may make it into a Ukraine Special Military Operation Lessons Learned Tank, but that will come later when Russia can afford it, if Russia's still around after this.
@@SgtBeltfed Are you sure you're not having this reversed bud? Russia avoid it like the plague? Is that why the US is having its proxy fight Russia instead down to the last Ukrainians instead of deploying their own troops and doing it themselves? Friendly reminder the US has only ever attacked militarily insignificant countries after WW2, and even during WW2 the USSR is the one who did the bulk of the fighting against German forces.
Zvezda on Sunday the 3rd, "Военная приемка" covered the Kazan tank training school in this episode "Казанское. Высшее. Танковое ". It showed a T-14 as a training tank. Overall they said they are training on many tanks including the T-14.
@@egoalter1276 Against missiles and tank shells, missiles make sense. However against drones, having a deep ammunition supply is arguably more important; it's easy to overwhelm a tradition APS with like half a dozen drones in short succession and both sides are already using that tactic...
The piggy is just a hard coper, but the western version of it. We have many people like him defending both sides with absolutely no clue at all about the situation.
I find it funny that both the Russian Terminator vehicle and Quake 2 Super Tank have loosely the same armament! The 2 grenade launchers are the closest resemblance, but both have, missiles and automatic cannon of some sort too :D
-mom i want TTB (tank test bed) - honey we have TTB at home still it is a great tank considering its weight, it will be the same with abrams x , it will turn out that the hull is not better than m2a3
So thats why it was so fast and agile while being so large. Its basically sacrificed armor for tech. Lots of tech. Like, a ridiculous amount of tech. I can see why its the "Universal Armata Platform". It needs to be multiple things at once too as it was supposed to be able to be turned into an IFV(T-15 Armata) and an SPAAG and then an MBT(T-14 Armata). No wonder Russia went with the T-90M. For what it is, the Armata Platform is in need of some futuristic tech for it to truly become what they intend it to be. A switchable platform that can be either A or B when you need it to be with shared parts.
T-14 largeness is a meme, all the external equipment and the shroud make the turret look much bigger than it is. It is fast because the engine is no weaker than western ones but the tank is 20 tons lighter.
1:33 While not actual combat, I 19 / P 5 field exercises definitely have the CV90s actively seeking a flanking position on the strv 122s in order to engage them with the auto-cannon. Obviously not happening in wide open areas, but add some hills, patches of forest or some houses and it is a threat to consider.
Modern Russia has upgraded from paint and rust to smoke and mirrors. The people are unchanged though, believing everything they are told by people who treat them like the cannon fodder they are.
i'd say the most likely drone defence is just a roof-mounted weaponstation with auto-guidance via radar. such systems allready exist and can just be mounted modularly. might even justify using specialsed rounds like shotgun shells, or programmable ammo.
Actually the biggest criticism I've had of the T-14 is that it looks like most weapon systems from a Heavy Machine Gun to an Auto Cannon would wreck this tank's turret. Having a tank without the means of defending itself is now a worthless tank. This video honestly makes that criticism I've had far more believable. Before this I'd assume the gun would be fine but the cameras and optics would be easy pickings. Now I think just about any APV or BMP with a 20mm or better cannon would disable this tank's ability to fight rather easily. Not just optics anymore but destroying it mechanically as well. Basically, in urban fighting this thing will be cannon fodder vs pretty much any fighting vehicle that has 12.7mm and up weaponry in my opinion, even if the crew survives and the hull can drive away after engaging. Basically at this point if they're making the turret like they are, they might as well design something similar to the America Stryker as some fully automated semi auto cannon variations exist already like the 105mm variation which can fire a wide range of munits including anti armor. But I guess the tank Cult is still very strong in Russia. I heard one of the purposes of the T-14 was to be a basis for a similar multi functional hull like the Stryker, but unlike the Stryker it's built on a MBT style chassis which is a terrible idea.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Did early in the war, with BMP ambushing Russian columns when Russia was on full offensive still, and with the Bradley vs the T80 not that long ago. So saying it "NEVER happens" is fibbing at best. Watched a documentary recently on the early parts of the war, and was quite surprised seeing incidents when the Russian Army actually drove passed a Ukrainian BMP literally hiding from them only for it to open up on the column after it passed. I gotta say honestly Ukraine has used their light armored vehicles quite effectively during this war. I can not help but ask were the Russian vehicle crews blind? Because one was almost in plain sight, hiding behind a building, not one vehicle looked to their left as they drove by.
they already have something similar to the Stryker, the sprutz, just tracked and only in service with VDV . I mean the russians got more experience than anyone in the world with building tanks as of rn and understanding their threats , maybe thats why the T-14s were only seen once in the 2nd line of the Donbass and quickly pulled back into main land russia.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 20-40mm autocannons can range out to 2km just fine, more with modern optics and ballistic compuiters. And if a platoon of IFVs spread out hull down in the bushes can defang your armoured battallion pushing across an open field, what you have is useless dain on precious resources, not an effective instrument of assault.
In addition to drones, I would worry that having a paper thin turret would leave it open to being destroyed by certain types of HE shells, where the blast would remove the turret and the explosion enters the hull to do untold damage to ammo and components. At least the T-14 looks cool. Shame we'll probably never see it on the battlefield. Russia would never allow their pride and joy be unceremoniously cooked off by an $100 DJI. Drones have changed so much about warfare, I wonder what future tanks will look like with FPV drone attacks in mind.
They need their Trophy/Iron Fist APS to integrate something like GAU19B or Dillon Aero 503D for slower FPV drones. They have 1500-3000 rpm cyclic rates and anti-material rounds that would make short work of Lancet FPV munitions. Then back it up with a laser for lesser drones to save money and conserve ammo and extend combat duration, dipping into the new power packs from the latest hybrid electric engines. Then it could double duty as an auxiliary .50cal when either the loader isn't loading the main gun or an autoloader has taken over that task. Essentially a CWIS or C-RAM with an option for manual control when no aerial threats are detected. It would fit on IFV's as well as MBT's and battlefield taxie's much alike. I suppose it depends on what's cheaper maybe those SHORAD turrets might work too.
I thought it was also possible that they were using this war to study how tanks would work and their vulnerabilities in modern combat then would include these in either the updated variant for the T-14 or a new tank similar to it.
Exactly. It makes no sense in the current environment to produce a vehicle that was clearly optimised for tank on tank engagements. It was made to counter tactics used in the gulf war, but todays’ war in ukraine looks nothing like that. Now it’s all about countering drone strikes, be it with jamming or APS systems.
Well it was a 2010s tank so it doesn’t have the anti-drone capabilities, for me what they likely to do next is slapping the t-95 turret with ARENA-M attached on top to deal with the drone or Javelin and Afganit at side to deal with APFSDS.
@@Alphacuremom55 To attribute the outstanding performance of the Bradley to just their higher numbers would numbers would be a oversimplification. Because there was multiple other factors that were just as important. Things like engagement scenarios, terrain and tactics, enemy vulnerabilities, etcetera, etcetera. However this is a UA-cam comment NOT an after action report so I'll cut to the chase... Simply put Bradleys weren't designed or expected to go toe to toe with opposition MBTs. The reason why they ended up facing and knocking out so may T-72's has (a lot) to do with the tactics US Tank Battalions employed. As often the Bradleys role was one of armored reconnaissance. As such, the Bradleys would run into the enemy first. They'd use their TOW missiles to take out tanks while waiting for the M1s to move up into position. Hope my long winded BS helped...😂
The circle of like. 1. Russia creates a new "super weapon." 2. NATO panicks and makes their own in response. 3. Russian weapon turns out to be shit. 4. Decades of NATO supremacy. 5. Repeat.
4.1 Russia develops a cheap counter for NATO 'supremacy'. 4.2 NATO quivers with fear and refuses to fight Russia even when 'disrespecting sovereignty of a foreign country' like Ukraine. 4.3 NAFO bots post cope like yours and nothing really happens.
@@inurmomsbedroom123 * 4.1 Russia lies about creating a cheap counter *4.2 NATO doesn't believe Russia and crosses Russia's red lines. Russia has to invade or lose face. *4.3 invasion goes poorly tens of thousands of Russians dead *4.4 Russian bots make excuses for the poor performance *4.5 Russians stay poor and beat down Fixed that for you
Oh yes, we've seen how well the nafo supremacist game changers worked LMAO Latest T90s have better field longevity than M1, Leopards and Challengers While costing less than half a piece
During WW2 the Russians calculated that the survival time of a tank in battle was 45 minutes. So they decided to build more, not better. The philosophy apparently has not changed since.
1:30 I feel like this is kind of missing the mark, sure autocanons might not engage tanks that often. But that definitly does not mean other threats like shell fragments, or even Heavy machine gun fire do not pose a threat to the turret. Not to mention the inability for the APS to deal with top attack munitions like spike or javelin. It might have been deemed a worthy compromise to keep the weight down, especially because the crew wouldnt be at risk. But it does seem like it would be more at risk of a mission kill than other tanks
Was a bigger turret suppose protect it from top attack? The vast majority of tank losses were to mines and artillery. The rare instances of armoured engagements again rarely fired upon the turret. This is a tiny fraction of circumstances you want to put another 20 tons on the tank to account for. It is economically impractical. Not to mention, this is a modular platform. If they need bigger turrets, then they just make bigger turrets. The whole tank doesn't need to be replaced.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 It is vulnerable from top attack because the APS is mounted horizontally in tubes at the base of the turret, thus not allowing the possibility of it taking out a top attack munition. I never said adding 20 tonnes was a good idea, nor is that even close to how much extra roof armor would weigh, a T72 turret weighs 17 tonnes for reference . But you are right, they could make a new turret and put it on the current hull, i am just talking about the current design
@@fbiagent9544 The absolute vast majority of tank losses are to mines, artillery, and now drones. What's not sensible about the Russian design? It just looks to me like they're addressing their biggest problems first from an economical standpoint. There isn't even a production model yet, these are basically prototypes.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Problem is they're not adressing any of the issues you just talked about, there's no anti drone system, there's no mine detection or clearing equipment. I'm not saying other tanks do have these features currently, but because it is a new generation of tank I think it should at least have an answer to these threats. I'm aware the T-14 is not in large scale production just yet. Maybe they will adress these issues, but this version does not at the moment so thats why i am talking about it. Tank concepts shown at Eurosatory commonly featured anti drone systems. Also keep in mind, while these systems may be expensive, losing a whole tank to a drone is alot more expensive.
@@fbiagent9544 You know they're not addressing these problems how? I don't see any production models that have come out that affirms what you're claiming. We quite literally see ECM systems on their other MBTs so what has you so certain they're doing absolutely nothing to address these issues for the Armata series? Does that make sense to you or do you think the Russians are just st"pid? Did they just forget?
Honestly, nothing will be known about the tank until an angry russian leaks the manual on warthunder
🤣
This joke for some reason never gets old despite being under basically any speculation about not only armored vehicles, but so many weapons.
That would be angry Americans. An angry Russian would just steal the thing and drive it all across the Atlantic delivering it right to the US of A.
So sad that everybody knows about this incident. Much less chance it ever happen again.
@@tiortedrootskyit have happened 20 times already
It is also protected by a warehouse 1000km away from every frontline.
Haha - brilliant comment 👍🤣🤣
You have just described the process of using NATO and US tanks by Ukraine, they just stand in the rear and sometimes roll out to make a couple of shots.
The tanks are being used in the front, reason of multiple losses.@User-oq7yi
@@User-oq7yi haha yes sure. At least they can roll; not like the armata who could not even make it across the red square!
we have report of them being used for indirect fire as motar/artillery pieces.
this means, according to gaijin, it must be impenetrable from all angles.
like the leo turret?
Just like leo1 or abrams when hit by 152mm crowbar?
@@raketny_hvost tf are you guys on about
@@jerryalbus1492 it's called gajopium
@@user-su6ts9wm1hBrother what?? I just know you’re a Russia main because the Leo turret is pretty much on par with any top tier Russian turret armor. If u ever wanna know how bad russia mains are at aiming for weak spots since they’re so used to their op tanks just play the Sweden tree t90.
They really made that "No armor is best armor" build💀
It still has Monolith though. The problem is, its only the hull which is acceptable since it was supposed to be turned into an IFV or even SPAAG since its a Universal Platform.
The thing is, its probably like the T-15 Armata and lacks turret armor.
Next logical development fot the tank is the fitting of bikini armour.
@@pilotmanpaul logically speaking, the reason why the turret does not have alot of armour is because the crew is stored in the hull. the turret is also small, and as mentioned in the video the only thing damagable is the cannon.
@@ILoveforGames that’s pretty stupid since the Canon is your main offensive weapon in a tank. You need to protect it more than perhaps some of the other areas of the tank.
Add T14 to war thunder and watch the actual armor specs get leaked
T-14 Armata gonna be in War Thunder before it sees the actual battlefield
& you will see Armata on his paper skills onely in vidéogames. Since it broke all the time can't fire withou électronic fail. The crew can't solve this issue on the batlefield.
We boutta get GTA 6 before the Armata reaches combat 💀
@@user-vu9xl2yz4si can smell the baguette
Well to be fair, a lot of top tier tanks aren't even being produced yet, let alone used in active service lol. Take Challenger 3 and Strv 122+ for example
@@user-vu9xl2yz4swhat are you yapping about
Gijian's research guys seeing these images: write that down! write that down!
nope. more like DESTROY THIS FILM COMRADE!
Knowing their history with russian vehicles they will not be writing anything down
Something got leaked to Gaijin forums
Pure gold
Knowing gaijin, they will fill the void in the hull with 1m of composite, make the malakit 1200mm effective against KE and CE, a 2 2,5second autoloader and give the APS 2 extra charges and a 0.1microsecond reaction time
Lazerpig: the t-14 armor thickness is less than the honda jazz armor
Lazerpig thickness has More Armour then the German Mouse Tank
I hope he is NEVER forgiven for having made that ""mistake""
@@jahnahjarvis2963that just propaganda they make the tank looks bad bcs from russia 😂
@u2beuser714 problem is lazerpig is a confirmed ukrainian propagandist and was debunked numerous times (he literally said it himself) so it's hard to tell when he's just guessing or actually knows lmao, terrible credibility. meanwhile red-effect goes off currently known information
lmao, i know lazerpig is the bumbling baboon of the bunch but the fact that he is right one this aspect is absolutely hilarious.
1stRussian scientists "how can we protect it from fpv drones"?
2nd Russian scientist "we can build a metal shed around it"
Why then have the “best” scientists in the world not yet come up with a defense and passed it on to the Ukrainians?
Or you can roll like abrams and have nothing 😂 arrogance and stupidity. Cages work, regardless of how people think they look
@@vodkanet7533 you instantly took offence over a joke, that didnt mean any lmao. classic Vatnik
Thats the soldiers themselves, its a soviet thing. Its their lives at risk, its up to them to decide how to make use of the gear in order to survive.
@vodkanet7533 lots of videos show how well the cage doesn't work.
They don't have to worry about the armor if they don't build the tank
Correct they are wanting to build t80 again but with some modification.😊😊
they have 35+ armata tanks what are you on about. some even with 152mm cannons
@@YaxCore Where are they? If they are in Ukraine, their contribution isn't even noticeable.
@@kunsifmaybe t 80 is cheaper and easier for mass production
@@YaxCorethis parade tank more not too expensive all protopy
Makes much more sense how the t14’s weight is so low, now that we know it’s not some super armoured pillbox people said it was.
you do not know nothing, because 1/3 of tanks weight is turret even more on western tank. with no man in it weight of turret is much smaller. Still T-14 is over 50 tones, so yeah it has good armor protection....
@@galicije83 so the kf51 must be having by far the best armor then with its 59 tons
Yes, because this guy has all the classified specs. You saw one image of the innermost layer of a multi layered hull and well... thats it, the T14 is in fact the weakest tank ever made 🤷🏽♀️
@@lordgammadonkaargon2830This is the mass of the normal KF-51 (the one with the manned turret), we still don't know the mass of the KF-51U (the one with the remote turret).
@@lordgammadonkaargon2830 Both the KF-51-U with the unmanned turret and the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 with unmanned turret. Both are still close to 60 tons with unmanned turrets so theoretically these have the largest weight reserves for armor.
Any future tank design has to incorporate electronic attack and defense in addition to anti air capacity. Failure to incorporate this will result in a $200 FPC drone blowing up your fuel tanks
drones are getting as cheap as 50-60$ atp lol
have you heard of combined arms? Thou I don't think it matters because if they spend 100,000 drones on one MBT they still win in cost.
The future of conventional warfare will still be combined arms warfare with specialized drone units made for specific offensive and defensive capabilities. Tanks in the future won't need protection from drones as there will be a special drone for jamming enemy drone swarms with electronic warfare. There is one thing to understand about this type of conventional warfare. It only works when it's a nuclear power fighting one without nuclear weapons or two powers without nuclear weapons fighting one another. If two nuclear powers go to war, this strategy is null and void because no one will bother with a conventional war that will end up in a nuclear war so they'll attempt a first strike with nuclear weapons.
@P3RF3CTD3ATH The only issue with that is MAD. Even if they get a nuke launched the opposing force will launch their nuclear arsenal in retaliation, resulting in both parties being annihilated in the end.
Drones are vulnerable to lasers, I can imagine rapid autodetection and tracking for drones after they which are destroyed with high powered lasers
1:32 There's an incident of a Bradley using its autocannon vs T-72 during Desert Storm. It wasn't more than an effective distraction w/HE until the Wingman completed a reload drill on the TOW system (*IIRC).
The Bradley auto canon with DU will penetrate 100mm. It will make a mess of even the front of a tank.
@@williamzk9083 wont sure penetrate the hull, but it will break driver/gunner optics which is suprisingly, vital.
At this point we have seen several instances of various autocannons used against tanks in Ukraine (I would say more instances than actual tank vs. tank fights) and every time they had been a real threat for the tank.
I can only imagine what an Otomatic-like 76mm autoacannon could have done.
he was firing at the turret front and bounced off.
the thing of the drohnes is : hollow charges with a penetrationpower of over 100mm steel hitting at turret tops or backs with armor of 40mmsteel at max, in case of turret tops its 20-25 mm only
@@johanmikkael6903ye but a Leopard would suffer more as its less armoured and abrams would suffer same fate as the T72 (from a bmp2m/bmp3)
Seems like active protection and fpv drone defence is more important at this point, armour thats just good enough to prevent carastrophic kills so crew can escape and tank cheap enough to allow for easy replacements
Very true. Tank on tank doesn't matter, it's all about the drones.
I agree Armata is the next gen tank, not rly the current one. Basically, its still under development, they are just excited with the looks.
@@fabio4465its been canceled
The problem is that the T-14 supposedly costs as much as the Abram’s to product, around $8 million per tank. If true, then it’s understandable why one of the reasons given as to why it’s not being made in the quantities promised several times now is the cost of production. 1,000 would be $8 billion. But they would need at least 2,000 over the production run. The problem is that it also means support infrastructure - parts, training, storage, munitions, etc. according to public sources, that equals the amount of cost for the tanks themselves. We would be talking about anywhere from a minimum of $15 billion to over $30 billion. Can they really afford that? Even over years?
That must be why the crew access hatch is hydraulic...and why the APS only covers the frontal arc. Genius.
Lay off the copium.
Videos about T-14 like this remind me of videos breaking down science fiction space ships. They don't exist either.
Remember like 6 years ago this tank was said to be 30 years ahead of any western tanks by all the analysts...
Amazed to find out how much of a lemon it is.
What analysts ? Everyone knew it was nothing more than vaporware.
Don't fall for Russian Propaganda.
western tanks are 1970s, 30 years ahead - 2000s. Just about right :)
You're just overexaggeratig nobody said it is 30 years ahead of anything 😂
But it is true that the Armata is still better than conventional tanks, since the crew has better protection than in any other conventional tanks.
But of course that doesn't mean it's invincible or indestructible 😂
Dont forget we are assuming the hard kill system actually works
It probably works but not against APFSDS like they claim.
@@erikjohansson4275The APS doesn’t seem to be able to target FPVs above it. Just frontal, and side shot.
I think, at this point, Armata will be skipped for something much lighter and drone orientated.
BMP-T terminator did not do well with early drones
With what budget?
Pretty sure Armata is equivalent to SU-57. A propaganda piece that was never intended for production numbers, just something to display on redsquare in the month of May
What do you mean with what budget you think the US is the only one that can just print up money only thing that matters is if countries are willing to use the money, usa is like 35 trillion dollars in debt. I don't even think we can pay the interest off anymore with our GDP
@@thomashaapalainen4108 Budget doesn't matter all that much in war economy, knowhow, goods availability and tech export matter more
Small note, from what I've seen, the later T14s do appear to have thickened the frontal armour imo. The Era looks fully aligned with the track fenders and there is an overlap of armour on the nose where the angled plates meet. But honestly, it doesn't matter because I still believe these are all pre production models and the overall armour layout could very well change. The important parts in testing at the moment are the hull/suspension/engine and electronics. Lastly, this could well be one of the many tank types produced in limited quantities only to end up with a different vehicle heavily influenced by testing. It could be one of those. What's important about the Armata project is the scope of building many different vehicles with huge number of common parts which will pay dividends long term. Of course...who can read the future, right?
You're right, there are T-14s with a different profile on their upper front plates shown in exhibitions compared to the ones in parades. I'm wondering if they added composite screens much like the Leopard 2A7s.
@@pacianooo3250They can’t afford to build them… They likely never will.. Too much corruption. Like that level = nothing will ever reach full potential. They had better than Armata a few times and squandered that with better economic statuses. So I have low confidence they can make this at all now that the armor is that thin.
Honestly who cares? It's just fun to speculate, I guess...
Another thing that Red falls into is the missile modle
This is just a model, you can change it propertieswithouth changing the model, meaning its form is inconcecuencial.
What matter is accuracy of testing and live testing (meaning reality certification)
So unless we get to test it or get both the test and live result comparison the test itself is bogus.
Not to mention that:
Where the heck this info come from? Can we trust it?
Can we trust that it wasnt alter in even small details?
@@BARelement Their ministry of defense announced that they cancelled the T-14 program. It was never anything more than vaporware.
The amount of Russia bots out there proclaiming the superiority of Russian T72s are crazy
Like that thing is 51 years old 1 years older than my mom
last time I was this early, Crimea belonged to otomans
the ottomans reached crimea ???
holy shit never knew they went this far into eastern europe
Heh.
@@perfectcell1157 Crimea never belonged to the Ottomans.
The Crimean Khanate was a vassal state to the Ottoman Empire, nothing more.
The guy who posted the initial comment has no idea what he's talking about.
u mean the byzantine empire?
@@wallachia4797 so what I stretched the actual fact a bit, most people have no idea of.
yes while it was strong khanat, ... in the end it was still a puppet state. and ottomans displaying crimea as their own land on maps puts it to end
and if you expect comments on internet to be 100% factual then welcome to internet ... have fun
I'm a structural simulation engineer and tbh yes simulation came a long long way. But nothing beats real world testing. Imperfections, manufacturers process defects, and real life conditions can vary from slightly to greatly, so thats to be taken into account.
So, I have a question for you, how much do you believe that the T-14 is a tank to replace the T90s?
Russia claimed it was, but all they are doing are building some prototypes and keep testing them, over and over, and the new upgrades, never applied on these prototypes, which is weird, don't you think? It's the same with SU57 no?
@@ajstyles5704Your tone makes it sound like he was defending the tank.
WTF is structural simulation engineer ? is that some kind of yooutube expert that learned FEM and now is smart.
don't forget that those FEM youtubers can assign a different materials for the armor
@@The_ZeroLine who cares about the tone. What do you think? Without giving biased statement?
The T-14 will never see combat, it is a prototype that will never be made.
HEAT, HESH, and HE is gonna have a field day with this tank with that paper turret armor
Bradley's destroyed dozens of T-72's in Iraq in 91 and 03.....and not just with TOW's.
Funny thing is, Russian bots still claim the T72 is a good tank, and somehow fooled most of the population to that fact.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and speculation, but the results of real battles are the perfect answer to the capabilities of the weapons
100%
Not at all imo, or at least it has to be taken with circumstance. Syrian performance with the T-72M would indicate it to be a fantastic tank that could run circles around the M60 it faced in Isreali service, whereas looking at the Iraq wars it struggled against M60A3s due to the poor training, morale and outdated ammo it was equipped with.
There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account.
@hansshekelstein9450 Which then, of course, makes things complicated. So instead, most internet armchair experts devolve to comparing publicly available information to publicly available information, as if reality is that black and white.
So the t-14 need to be in the real battlefield in the first place to judge its real capabilities then?
I believe that Armata will remain not mass produced since RU learned in this war that tanks are very vulnerable to FPV drones and until they figure it out how to deal with FPV, but now I am at the end of the video and Red Effect mentioned this, somewhat.
So... they just copied Object 187 hull? And it took them two decades to do so?
DONT FORGET THE PORSCHE TIGER ENGINE FROM 1941😂😂😂😂
THE WERY UNRELIABLE ENGINE 😂😂😂😂😂
@@Mrbimmer11 Tiger P used two air cooled engines that were supposed to run generators.
Idk what LazerPig was trying to refer to when making that video, but please, don't repeat that or you'll summon RedEffect's "specialist" subscribers and I really don't have time and will to argue with 50 separate serbs, who don't read each others comments. Уже были прецеденты:(
5:35 for the actual answer. It's "we have no clue what the actual armor is". The whole video is just "we kind of figured out an equivalent for the ERA on top of the tank". That's the only tidbit, stretched out over 8 minutes.
And that info is highly doubtful, cause T-14 and its ERA is still in prototype stage, it can have different modification of ERA and hull armor by now, with different protection.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907I agree!
Thanks for saving us time!
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 well it wont have any, since the project was cancelled
@@ghost963cz Not canceled, sent for re-work. T-90 is good, but it doesnt have much life in it left.
The Russians lied ?!? OMG ! Who would have ever guessed that?
Who doesnt lie? Ukrainians? Especially about their relations with the republics of Donbas since 2014.
@@paulwilson8061 there are far more lies about Donbass from the russian side than the ukrainian one. People still point at what happened at Odesa today, this is how powerful russian propaganda today
T-14 Armata can't hurt you, it doesn't exist, really.
TIL during Operation Desert Storm, the M2 Bradley performed more tank kills than the Abrams
With ATGMs
@@dhanu_4539
Well of course, what else are you going to shoot at a tank from a Bradley?
They only used the 25mm when they happened across a tank in very low observability conditions and only then to confuse and scare the enemy and keep track of its position
@dhanu_4539 it's 25mm wasn't gonna do the job. It has ATGM got a reason. The TOW was made to give non tank gun carrying units (essentially anything not a tank) a ability to kill a tank.
@@MostlyPennyCat missing the whole point. The active protection system is for the ATGMs the armor us for the 25mm ... You can't just mention both like it's the same thing
@@dhanu_4539
I bet you could shoot out the APS and disable the gun with the 25mm, backup and hit it with a TOW! 🤩
With the amount of FPV drones buzzing around I wouldn't be surprised if this program got cancelled in favor of something with much different type of protection. T90M is clearly struggling with it, and Abrams and Chally can't even show up on the battlefield.
No tank can show up on the battlefield.
At all.
The only difference between east and west is the western tanks don't vaporise their crew.
@@MostlyPennyCat " No tank can show up on the battlefield."
That's why they... Keep appearing.
@@MostlyPennyCat yes ... the crew is just barbequed inside of western tanks XD
@@MostlyPennyCat Is this the newest level of cope for the "Abrams and Challengers superior Western technology" folks?
Please show me actual proofs of Russian tanks more likely to "vaporise" their crew other than the millions of basic Western pundits on reddit saying 'Russian tanks explode hurdur' based on a select few videos that has been published over the last 3 years.
Also news flash, crew members can still "vaporise" (die) even if a tank doesn't explode or burn. So there is literally zero basis for your claim unless you can supply people with well-documented research with statistics to back up your claim.
@@MostlyPennyCat bem, então não há diferença
Shocking the AliExpress tank turns out even worse.
We were so wrong... we thought it was egg carton but it's actually air because they aren't making any. Rookie mistake.
Intercepting a missile this close to the armor still relies on the armor having enough thickness to deal with malformed jet. 10-20 cm of glass composite would be welcome.
yeah that's evident, the US ERA actually explodes and counters the force with another force
@@PASTRAMIKick US ERA works only against HEAT rounds. Only Ukraine, China and Russia have decent ERA against Kinetic rounds.
You should totally look into the kinda-redemption arc of the TR-85M1, with the TR-85M1R which was showed at BSDA 2024.
It is likely to be accepted into service as an upgrade package for the TR-85M1 first and foremost and even for some of the older TR-85 tanks. I've heard news about the future upgrade plans of 108 tanks, aka 2 battalions worth of them.
It is not a signifikant Upgrade like the Armor or engine its just new electronics. I would like to see the tr-85 Tanks with a turkish new modular turet with 105 mm or 120 mm but asume 105mm is better suitted as 120mm is to powerfull for the Chassis
@@andreilazar2800 Ukrainians have fitted a 125mm gun to a T-55 chassis which is significantly worse than the TR-85 chassis and that still worked.
Although you are right, the gun was not upgraded, neither was the armour, but the engine, transmission, tracks and suspension, FCS (with a CITV), LWSLR systems, driver controls, electronics will be upgraded with the M1R package.
108 tanks apparently.
I would've done more, since Romania has around 300 tanks in various modifications from TR-85s, M1, M1As etc but whatever, as much as the limited budget allows I guess
@@Brother_Nihilus Romania has in active service 5 tank battalions, each having 54 tanks.
Two battalions are equipped with T-55AM/AM2 tanks which is 108 tanks. Other two battalions are equipment with TR-85-800 tanks, which is another 108. And the last battalion is equipped with 54 TR-85M1 Bizonul tanks.
In addition there are some claims that Romania has in reserve more than 100 TR-85-800 tanks and some TR-580 tanks, which is enough for two more battalions. But I can't find any evidence that this reserve still exists or if it is in any usable condition and considering that two battalions still operate the older and inferior T-55, there must be a good reason that those newer tanks aren't used.
@mariatoma6582 As I presented earlier in the previous comment, the Romanian army has 5 tank battalions, each having 54 tanks. Romania has bought 54 M1A2R tanks, this in exactly one battalion and these tanks will only be delivered in 2026.
While the Romanian Ministry of National Defense has in its agenda to acquire 300 modern MBTs, it lacks the budget for such a significant expense and the modernization of three battalions of the TR-85 tanks could be a shortcut for this achievement.
@@levilastun829it said that maybe that romania will buy 300 k2s
I was in shock when i heard news about frontal armour ricently. I thought it's going to have well over 1m equivalent RHA without ERA.
I don’t remember anyone saying that. I always heard 900mm without era and over 1m with era
Literally nothing here gives any indication about the effective protection of the composite armor...
@@mowabb I didnt eather but i was expecting much more than T90A/T90M values. One thing i was always wondering is how did they make tank of that size and make it well protected while keeping it around 55 tones? Myb there was some advanced composite/ceramic material that allows that? And now turns out that is not the case. Most of the tank is just steel and it's turret is even more vulnerable than older tanks because if APS system fails 1 RPG shot can disable turret while we all saw old tanks surviving multiple fpv/rpg strikes in turret and continuing to work.
All new fancy stuff we saw at 2015 victory parade turnd out to be useless for Russian soldier.... Armata family is still not in full scale production and it's armour is nothing special, Kurganets and Boomerang will never go into production, Uran 9 and other armed ugvs are nowhere to be seen so soldiers have to make theyr own robots in the field....
Really disappointing.
@@novinovic298 that's because other tanks have crew and systems in the turret while armata crew is not there and even when turret is diabled the tank will be able to drive home, which is not the case for other tanks where if the turret is disabled it's abandoned (if anyone stays alive)
Now I am kinda glad armata didn't go into full production. It isn't very viable on modern battlefield, I see more potential in T-90M development, as it is possible to fit unmanned turret there as well, but it'd be far better armored
Some additional armor for the turret would be nice. Even thought the turret is a rather small target, it would benefit the tank if the turret could be kept in a working condition for a longer period of time.
I wonder how devastating 20mm hits on the turret are.
@@triage2962 That is my problem with the low turret armoring. The crew is going to be fine, but a tank without a working cannon is basically a worse IFV.
If the armor is low, the tank is too easy to disable.
Tanks statistically do not get hit in the turret. Therefore it is overall economical to have lightly armoured unmanned turrets. Tanks statistically don't even engage other armoured vehicles. They are mostly knocked out by mines and artillery. Drones are a recent addition.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Since when? Tanks are statistically hit in the turret a lot, since it's the most exposed part of the tank. fire-and-forget ATGMs are specifically designed to hit the turret (from above). We have seen countless Stugna-P being guided vs. the turrets.
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755
The turret is the most common thing hit
2:17 MY BOY DEJMIAN XYZ MAKING IT ONTO THE SCENE WITH THIS ONE 🗣🗣🗣🗣
This tank isn't meant to be in production, it's more of the corruption project
Corruption and deception
T-14 is irrelevant not because of the armor or the weapons system, but because it used to be cutting edge in 2015, when it had been revealed, and there’s is still nothing resembling its serial production, while modern warfare has evolved drastically since the promise of this tank was titillating.
military tech does not move that fast, it's still leaps and bounds above any other design, the problem now is the same as always, lack of production
@@doltBmB🤣🤣🤣
@@doltBmB Russians chose the wrong APS. Everything protected by a Trophy, or similar "dome" APS, is better protected than the T-14 by now.
We have also seen several instances of autocannons vs. tank battles in Ukraine, more than tank vs. tank actually, and the T-14 would have probably fared worse than the old models in those, because the crew might have been safe but, without the turret, disabled by the first few rounds, they couldn't have done much anyway.
T-14 would have been cutting edge in 2005 maybe. Now it's just an obsolete prototype
@@qZbGmYjS4QusYqv5 Take also into account the very unusual engine configuration (12 cylinders "X" engine).
"X" engines have to be designed from a clean sheet, since they are exceedingly rare, and they are extremely hard to do well (that's why they are so rare), but the engine compartment of the Armata is made so that it can't use any other configuration.
So basically great crew survivability, terrible tank survivability?
The simulated round hitting has an incredibly uncomfortable amount of penetration.
So those "monolith" from Stalker now make ERA armor for Russians . Damm
В БОЙ, ЗАЩИТНИКИ МОНОЛИТА!
@@varvarith3090 xD
"Trust nobody except The Monolith and your brothers... nobody."
redeffect wins giggle of day " not real armor " ..cute ... alas design follows function .. T14 is the center of a AI , mini tank called "sentry" .. plus drones .. plus integrated in a battle group
.. Glad the Brits followed your idea .. add weight .. same size engine [ with threats to improve ] ... just switched over smooth bore
.. worse .. you sound as you pine for days toe to toe armor ..Queen of battle field ....days gone bye
@@HavingFunYet-zc8wb i read this in gollum voice
Your tank is undefeated if it never sees combat, huh.
Love discussion about an imaginary friend... tank. I meant tank. 🤣
Wow i was expecting the turret to at least have auto cannon protection.
But other than that, its not really any worse than i expected
At least they reach the contact line when necessary, but western tanks on the other hand... LOL
@@RenanMendes-zd8hjThere’s videos of m1a2s destroying t-90s in combat. The t-14 never saw combat in the past 3 years.
@@bigfella9034 LOL and there is a video of me downing a helicopter with an arrow
@@bigfella9034 Where are you dreaming my friend. Outside the footage where a Leo 2A6 shoot at a t-72 which did not penetrated it there is no occurence of tank to tank combat ever happened in ukraine beetwen a western tank and a russian one.
IKR, at least protect it against the A10, and Bradleys, though a giant cope cage plus armour skirts should work against FPV drones, it works for the turtle tanks, which are actually T-62s with steel plate welded onto a frame mounted on the tank.
seems T-14 is an abandon idea anyway , costs too much, I don't think RU will mass produce them, as T-90 is doing the same job for less money. It was an interesting desing though.
It’s interesting. If the turret isn’t well protected, that’s a major problem. We’re being told by defenders of the tank that the turret doesn’t need all that armor as it’s not a manned turret. But that’s wrong. The only purpose a tank has is the ability to throw heavy rounds a fair distance. If the turret is penetrated and the gun is out of commission, then the tank is useless. More than that, the crew is helpless. So, if this is true about the armor, then it’s difficult to understand what the designers were thinking. The new drones just make it even worse.
if your looking for common sense in youtube comments , you wont find it. as for tank itself , we have no idea how it could preform , not likely it will be ever deployed in Ukraine , im not sure if its due flaw/flaws , lack of recourses due sanctions/not produced enough , or they just worried that their new super tank going to be super disaster in ukraine and expensive one.
The sensors, optics and barrel are unprotected on all MBTs. A hit on those is likley and will disable the turret regardless
Armor is there primarily to protect the crew. Not getting hit is the main strategy as opposed to surviving hits
The Armata's turret is much smaller and less likley to be hit. It can fire hull-down with the crew perfectly safe.
There is no need to protect the gun, it would just add more weight
When talking about nafo tanks, the most important aspect is crew survivability. Armata puts lots of attention in focusing on crew survivability, and suddenly the only thing that matters is the cannon. Y'all are laughable.
What if the role of the tank is to snipe other tanks outside of their range? I think that's what the Russians were trying to achieve with this tank so they don't need turret armour.
Doesn't matter if the turret is armored or not. Getting shot there will likely damage or disable FCS and the like. You don't need to penetrate a tank to make it combat ineffective
The T-14 has the best protection possible, distance. It is always out of range from enemy fire.
A few things to be kept in mind:
- T14 model 2015 was mostly a technology demonstrator. By 2030, we may have a very different tank, maybe a 152 mm cannon, among some other things as mentioned in an August 2022 report
-The Malachit E.R.A. is basically Relikit in principle, with clearly longer (and possibly) thicker plates. While not as powerful as DUPLET, it is clearly easier to manufacture and is much lighter
-The turret being thin isn't a bad thing necessarily. It's only a little bigger than a gun mantlet, and the front hull armor is likely a little thicker than on previous models
-The APS is good against something like Stugna-P, but not something like Javelin or FPV drones. Most tanks have little protection against them.
-The T-14 may be scrapped for an entirely new project, who knows ? If they can't fix the issues.
By 2030 Russia will already have fallen apart it seems
@@maxmachac9756 If you keep gulping whatever Zelensky's saying, then yes, you might get drunk on this belief, though, by 2030, Russia may have double/triple the people working for the War effort If it lasts that long.
i mean Afghanistan was obvioisly on the recieving end of The Soviet Union and they stil had to leave after 9 years, with MUCH less casualties than in Ukraine
and also Sending your ENTIRE Manpower pool as the supposed 2nd largest military in the world to fight a country was taught to be much weaker it does not sound like the Flex you think its is M8.
@@TheGreatGG7oh and also, by 2030 Russia might legitimately run out of Tanks,APCs and IFVs (functional ones that is) if attrition rates keep going so uh, Bayonet charges da?
@@TomoreniusTom tanks don't give birth to other tanks, they are made in factories, their factories are getting bigger by the day.
As long as they have them, this is just fantasy. It's Math 101.
The tank can't be "worse" if it doesnt even exist
edit: i have made mad both, NAFOs and Putin Bots, feels good
It exists there are 8 of them :-)
@@kwaii_gamerthere*
@@jaxfet3 Thank you corrected
Around 40 to 50 but sure@@kwaii_gamer
@@kuunoooo7293 LOL if they had 40 or 50 we would have seen at least one blown up at the front. We have seen 8 in a parade, Russia has 8
It is not worse than we thought or better than we thought... It simply does not exist! It is a failed project. Nothing more.
"T14 is not so good"
Gaijin: Yeah add it to 3.0 br
Wtf. Its still stupidly good thanks to that Monolith Reactive Armor it has. That thing can be put at 11.7 and still be stupidly good since its so lightweight.
@@pilotmanpaul Aint it max speed is like 50 km/h? And like absolute no proof that it went any faster than 50km/h?
@@pilotmanpaul 0 T14S have seen combat, the T14 was suppose to be this NATO super weapon tank killer but in reality is a pile of shit that would get shit stomped by a Bradley with a TOW system. Red Square is apparently its greatest weakness LOL. Even the Panther would cover greater distances!
@@pilotmanpaulits not lightweight its heavier than the T90M
@@pilotmanpaul The joke flew over your head bud..
"Might not be as good as thought." Who ever thought a 34-ton MBT was going to be good?
40-50 ton.
@@jonny2954 Still.
T-14 doesn't really need any armor if it only shows up in parades.
TL;DR: Even Lazerpig over-estimated the T-14s armour.
overestimated?
@@AmericansElite
vastly yes
Surprised Pikachu face..
NGL, ive been watching redeffect for over a year now and i feel like with all your research and such you deserve more likes and attention.
I guess in a purely tank-on-tank context it makes sense to go all-or-nothing with the armour and not worry too much about protecting the unmanned turret, though the wimpy ERA is still not ideal. But in the real world, where some Ukrainian reservist might crash a cheap drone into the turret roof and fuck up your main gun, it might not seem like such a great tradeoff anymore.
Correction, how good they CLAIM it is, remember this is Russia we are talking about
I wonder how the crew capsule itself is constructed and does it have any additional protection. it's probably just a space in the hull with spall liner but conceivably it could have been built with a separate layer of armor, since it's a relatively small area and protecting the crew should be a priority.
How many T-14 is russia using in the war? Same number of SU-57's.
Russia currently has between 14 and 22 SU-57's, in addition these are active in the Ukraine war.
Even Ukrainian sources reported that the SU-57's have been used both in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.
The clues are obvious. (1) There are no mass production of T-14. (2) China don't bother to copy the T-14 design.
1 is just typical for the Russian pretension, but 2 is convincing. Not even North Korea copied it.
@@matfax you cant just copy it and produce what hasnt been tested and approved yet bruh it would be a waste of time and money which an actuall good idea would have been done stop trolling though
@@unscinfinitydropshippalmer6146 China definitely copies before something being approved, stop trolling bruh.
China is not focused on a new Mbt currently and they already have the ZTZ99A to fill the void so.
@@kanestalin7246 What makes you think they arent developing new tank?
Just remember guys if you don't agree to this , you can always leak some classified documents to prove your point.
That frame at 3:53 with the KFC logo in the back is priceless. As well as how fast the camera guy tries to get it out of the picture :D
We should note the large gaps in the armour simulations. Those gaps could be filled with NERA/NxRA Fillings, like the Reflector Plates in T-72B/T-90 Turret models or like the ones in the Leopard 2Awhatever Hull.
Also this video purely focuses on Monolith ERA.
Could be filled with anything really given the corruption in the russian military.
I would honestly expect them to be filled with textolite. Fiberglass composite seems to eb the russian way for tank armour.
@@egoalter1276 Fair point, but then i also expect RHA or HHA plates in there also, like the T-80U's hull armour
can be filled by hopes and dreams
you assumed that the plates are representing the T-14 Armata's armor plates on no bases, that could be a random plates to test the ERA itself not the system as a whole
Yeah, these are just steel witness plates.
new german 130 mm cannon will penetrate that front armor like a breakfast cake.
The L/55 already can
@@GrindThunderer yes i know...but since the russians keep bragging about armata is next generation tank...just want be sarcastic that even your next generation tank can be penetrated by new same generation tank(KF-51)
@@GrindThunderer DM73 800mm apparently.
@@knowahnosenothing4862 imagine if it fired m829a4…
They used a 152mm cannon + 30mm machine guns on the T-95 experimental tank, which was canceled in 2010 in favor of T-14. T-14 can also be armed with a 152mm cannon if needed because the design allows it. I think it's too pointlessly overpowered. Old soviet 125mm cannon can easily destroy an Abrams and any tank as this war has shown. NATO standards with 120mm cannon and 7.62mm machine guns are still relevant too.
A 130 mm (33 kg) shell will weigh 2.5 times more than a 120 mm (13 kg) shell and this tank will need an autoloader, as even a trained person will have a hard time handling a shell of this size.
“The only thing in the turret that can get damaged is the main gun”. The gun is important, and all the electronics and their wiring in the turret can get damaged. The designers of this tank adopted a warthunder approach against MBTs, “everyone’s using SABOT, so let’s use armor so thin that it will just go right through.”
It may not be the best tank but always remember...warm beer is still colder than no beer 😏
I mean, Armata is based on a hull, not a turret. The turret was designed to start with to be destroyed. The main element of armata is the capsule that protects the crew.
There are german recovery vehicles based in the leopard hull, doesn't mean the turret was an afterthought on a 2A7. I don't see the point of making a replacement of the T-90 while not giving it the same purpose of the T-90. And with the proliferation of drones no tank currently in service anywhere is capable of effectively defending itself.
@@RhomasTotevenaar T-14 is more likely the replacement of T-80, while T-90 is supposed to be a low cost tank like the T-72
@@za_pravdu1943 that would make sense but there is an obvious error with this though. The T-14 like the previous T-72 and T-90, was designed to be manufactured at the Uralvagonzavod factory, while the T-80 was designed to be produced at the Leningrad Kirov Plant and Omsktransmash.
This seems to be reinforced by the fact that the Russians are planning to restore the production of the T-80 at Omsktransmash, instead of turning it into another production line for the T-90. In addition the Russians announced that the priority at the Uralvagonzavod factory is to maximize the production of the T-90, instead of changing production to the T-14
War Thunder adding this with 500mm of kinetic protection on the turret face
Meanwhile merkava: (they completely fucked its armor)
it won't even be able to tank 34
Next year will be one decade since the first reveal of the Armata family in 2015. That means this tank will never be in production because of its useless.
T-14 was designed for a fight that Russia is unlikely to ever fight. A head-on equal engagement with the US military. Russia will never have that fight, either because Russia will avoid it like the plague, or if it does happen, the rest of Russia's military won't be enough to make it even. After the cost gets figured in, and fights Russia can reasonably win, T-14 is DOA.
Now, some parts of T-14 may make it into a Ukraine Special Military Operation Lessons Learned Tank, but that will come later when Russia can afford it, if Russia's still around after this.
@@SgtBeltfed Are you sure you're not having this reversed bud? Russia avoid it like the plague? Is that why the US is having its proxy fight Russia instead down to the last Ukrainians instead of deploying their own troops and doing it themselves?
Friendly reminder the US has only ever attacked militarily insignificant countries after WW2, and even during WW2 the USSR is the one who did the bulk of the fighting against German forces.
@@SgtBeltfed Special Demilitarization of Russia.
Basically the AN-94 of tanks.
@@aaroncruz9181 No? It's not a super weapon, it's a modular and industrially efficient platform.
Zvezda on Sunday the 3rd, "Военная приемка" covered the Kazan tank training school in this episode "Казанское. Высшее. Танковое ". It showed a T-14 as a training tank. Overall they said they are training on many tanks including the T-14.
Take all that metal off on the outside and it's a skoda underneath
Also the drone question is really just begging for an automated CWIS mini-turret containing an auto shotgun.
that would be sick
I believe Drozd used to operate with a CIWS system. Missile based APS seems to have been universally decided as the superior hardkill method.
@@egoalter1276 Against missiles and tank shells, missiles make sense. However against drones, having a deep ammunition supply is arguably more important; it's easy to overwhelm a tradition APS with like half a dozen drones in short succession and both sides are already using that tactic...
Off course it is. It's a Potemkin tank. Not even the Russian army wants it
Redeffect slowly realizing everything lazerpig said was the truth
No, Lazerpig still has no clue about tanks.
If RedEffect disagrees with you on a topic about tanks you should sit down and listen
The piggy is just a hard coper, but the western version of it. We have many people like him defending both sides with absolutely no clue at all about the situation.
I find it funny that both the Russian Terminator vehicle and Quake 2 Super Tank have loosely the same armament! The 2 grenade launchers are the closest resemblance, but both have, missiles and automatic cannon of some sort too :D
-mom i want TTB (tank test bed)
- honey we have TTB at home
still it is a great tank considering its weight,
it will be the same with abrams x , it will turn out that the hull is not better than m2a3
So thats why it was so fast and agile while being so large.
Its basically sacrificed armor for tech. Lots of tech. Like, a ridiculous amount of tech. I can see why its the "Universal Armata Platform". It needs to be multiple things at once too as it was supposed to be able to be turned into an IFV(T-15 Armata) and an SPAAG and then an MBT(T-14 Armata).
No wonder Russia went with the T-90M. For what it is, the Armata Platform is in need of some futuristic tech for it to truly become what they intend it to be. A switchable platform that can be either A or B when you need it to be with shared parts.
It’s not meant to be switchable, it’s meant to simplify manufacturing, logistics, and salvaging.
T-14 largeness is a meme, all the external equipment and the shroud make the turret look much bigger than it is. It is fast because the engine is no weaker than western ones but the tank is 20 tons lighter.
Thank you for this.
The T-14 fascinates me.
And you seem the best source on it that I know of.
☮
Russia? Over reporting the capabilities of its weapon systems? Nooooo
1:33 While not actual combat, I 19 / P 5 field exercises definitely have the CV90s actively seeking a flanking position on the strv 122s in order to engage them with the auto-cannon. Obviously not happening in wide open areas, but add some hills, patches of forest or some houses and it is a threat to consider.
Life in a T14 tank is less than a 4 minutes. Have a nice ride bro.
Who cares. It isnt even in production. It barely passed prototype.
can you share the link to this document?
The pig was right. But you guys just didn't want to listen.
Modern Russia has upgraded from paint and rust to smoke and mirrors.
The people are unchanged though, believing everything they are told by people who treat them like the cannon fodder they are.
i'd say the most likely drone defence is just a roof-mounted weaponstation with auto-guidance via radar.
such systems allready exist and can just be mounted modularly.
might even justify using specialsed rounds like shotgun shells, or programmable ammo.
Actually the biggest criticism I've had of the T-14 is that it looks like most weapon systems from a Heavy Machine Gun to an Auto Cannon would wreck this tank's turret. Having a tank without the means of defending itself is now a worthless tank. This video honestly makes that criticism I've had far more believable. Before this I'd assume the gun would be fine but the cameras and optics would be easy pickings. Now I think just about any APV or BMP with a 20mm or better cannon would disable this tank's ability to fight rather easily. Not just optics anymore but destroying it mechanically as well. Basically, in urban fighting this thing will be cannon fodder vs pretty much any fighting vehicle that has 12.7mm and up weaponry in my opinion, even if the crew survives and the hull can drive away after engaging.
Basically at this point if they're making the turret like they are, they might as well design something similar to the America Stryker as some fully automated semi auto cannon variations exist already like the 105mm variation which can fire a wide range of munits including anti armor. But I guess the tank Cult is still very strong in Russia. I heard one of the purposes of the T-14 was to be a basis for a similar multi functional hull like the Stryker, but unlike the Stryker it's built on a MBT style chassis which is a terrible idea.
That never happens though.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Did early in the war, with BMP ambushing Russian columns when Russia was on full offensive still, and with the Bradley vs the T80 not that long ago. So saying it "NEVER happens" is fibbing at best.
Watched a documentary recently on the early parts of the war, and was quite surprised seeing incidents when the Russian Army actually drove passed a Ukrainian BMP literally hiding from them only for it to open up on the column after it passed. I gotta say honestly Ukraine has used their light armored vehicles quite effectively during this war. I can not help but ask were the Russian vehicle crews blind? Because one was almost in plain sight, hiding behind a building, not one vehicle looked to their left as they drove by.
they already have something similar to the Stryker, the sprutz, just tracked and only in service with VDV . I mean the russians got more experience than anyone in the world with building tanks as of rn and understanding their threats , maybe thats why the T-14s were only seen once in the 2nd line of the Donbass and quickly pulled back into main land russia.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 20-40mm autocannons can range out to 2km just fine, more with modern optics and ballistic compuiters. And if a platoon of IFVs spread out hull down in the bushes can defang your armoured battallion pushing across an open field, what you have is useless dain on precious resources, not an effective instrument of assault.
@@cherrypoptart2001 And yet they still cant seem to make anything that surpassed their own peak of tank design in the 80s.
Why are we still talking about the T-14?
During its debut May Day Parade, we saw the turret armor was chicken wire and drywall.
The Russian government has been saying for a good while they would be deploying them to Ukraine (Never has been deployed).
Some else to note is that they also claimed it was deployed during the Syrian War (it wasn’t)
until the T-14 is used in anger we will never know just how far that turret will jump into the air
this comment made me lose braincells
Learn more about its composition
In addition to drones, I would worry that having a paper thin turret would leave it open to being destroyed by certain types of HE shells, where the blast would remove the turret and the explosion enters the hull to do untold damage to ammo and components. At least the T-14 looks cool. Shame we'll probably never see it on the battlefield. Russia would never allow their pride and joy be unceremoniously cooked off by an $100 DJI. Drones have changed so much about warfare, I wonder what future tanks will look like with FPV drone attacks in mind.
They need their Trophy/Iron Fist APS to integrate something like GAU19B or Dillon Aero 503D for slower FPV drones. They have 1500-3000 rpm cyclic rates and anti-material rounds that would make short work of Lancet FPV munitions. Then back it up with a laser for lesser drones to save money and conserve ammo and extend combat duration, dipping into the new power packs from the latest hybrid electric engines. Then it could double duty as an auxiliary .50cal when either the loader isn't loading the main gun or an autoloader has taken over that task. Essentially a CWIS or C-RAM with an option for manual control when no aerial threats are detected. It would fit on IFV's as well as MBT's and battlefield taxie's much alike.
I suppose it depends on what's cheaper maybe those SHORAD turrets might work too.
I wish you would include links to the sources of these diagrams. I can't find the full papers anywhere.
I thought it was also possible that they were using this war to study how tanks would work and their vulnerabilities in modern combat then would include these in either the updated variant for the T-14 or a new tank similar to it.
Exactly. It makes no sense in the current environment to produce a vehicle that was clearly optimised for tank on tank engagements. It was made to counter tactics used in the gulf war, but todays’ war in ukraine looks nothing like that. Now it’s all about countering drone strikes, be it with jamming or APS systems.
The future is turtle tanks. 😂
Well it was a 2010s tank so it doesn’t have the anti-drone capabilities, for me what they likely to do next is slapping the t-95 turret with ARENA-M attached on top to deal with the drone or Javelin and Afganit at side to deal with APFSDS.
@@QualityPen T95 will become the first 13.0 tank in the next War Thunder update, you heard it here first
@@improperamogerT-95 got "passed to developers" a few months back, which is alarming....
During the Gulf War more Bradleys destroyed Russian tanks than Abrams did.
Not to discredit your statement, just curious, but I assume that's also because there were a lot more Bradleys than Abrams?
I'm pretty sure they destroyed old export variants of the T-55, T-62 and T-72s. Not to discredit the Bradley because it is still very good.
@@mikes989 There are no non-Soviet tanks in the Russian arsenal. Not a single one.
@@Alphacuremom55 To attribute the outstanding performance of the Bradley to just their higher numbers would numbers would be a oversimplification. Because there was multiple other factors that were just as important. Things like engagement scenarios, terrain and tactics, enemy vulnerabilities, etcetera, etcetera. However this is a UA-cam comment NOT an after action report so I'll cut to the chase... Simply put Bradleys weren't designed or expected to go toe to toe with opposition MBTs. The reason why they ended up facing and knocking out so may T-72's has (a lot) to do with the tactics US Tank Battalions employed. As often the Bradleys role was one of armored reconnaissance. As such, the Bradleys would run into the enemy first. They'd use their TOW missiles to take out tanks while waiting for the M1s to move up into position.
Hope my long winded BS helped...😂
The circle of like.
1. Russia creates a new "super weapon."
2. NATO panicks and makes their own in response.
3. Russian weapon turns out to be shit.
4. Decades of NATO supremacy.
5. Repeat.
4.1 Russia develops a cheap counter for NATO 'supremacy'.
4.2 NATO quivers with fear and refuses to fight Russia even when 'disrespecting sovereignty of a foreign country' like Ukraine.
4.3 NAFO bots post cope like yours and nothing really happens.
@@inurmomsbedroom123 * 4.1 Russia lies about creating a cheap counter
*4.2 NATO doesn't believe Russia and crosses Russia's red lines. Russia has to invade or lose face.
*4.3 invasion goes poorly tens of thousands of Russians dead
*4.4 Russian bots make excuses for the poor performance
*4.5 Russians stay poor and beat down
Fixed that for you
Oh yes, we've seen how well the nafo supremacist game changers worked LMAO
Latest T90s have better field longevity than M1, Leopards and Challengers
While costing less than half a piece
Lousy ideologised nonsence. NATO is always ahead because maintaining global western hegemony requires the world's most powerful military
@@olisk-jy9rz Russian cope lol. Cry me a Volga River, lmao.
During WW2 the Russians calculated that the survival time of a tank in battle was 45 minutes. So they decided to build more, not better. The philosophy apparently has not changed since.
1:30 I feel like this is kind of missing the mark, sure autocanons might not engage tanks that often. But that definitly does not mean other threats like shell fragments, or even Heavy machine gun fire do not pose a threat to the turret. Not to mention the inability for the APS to deal with top attack munitions like spike or javelin.
It might have been deemed a worthy compromise to keep the weight down, especially because the crew wouldnt be at risk.
But it does seem like it would be more at risk of a mission kill than other tanks
Was a bigger turret suppose protect it from top attack? The vast majority of tank losses were to mines and artillery. The rare instances of armoured engagements again rarely fired upon the turret. This is a tiny fraction of circumstances you want to put another 20 tons on the tank to account for. It is economically impractical. Not to mention, this is a modular platform. If they need bigger turrets, then they just make bigger turrets. The whole tank doesn't need to be replaced.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 It is vulnerable from top attack because the APS is mounted horizontally in tubes at the base of the turret, thus not allowing the possibility of it taking out a top attack munition. I never said adding 20 tonnes was a good idea, nor is that even close to how much extra roof armor would weigh, a T72 turret weighs 17 tonnes for reference .
But you are right, they could make a new turret and put it on the current hull, i am just talking about the current design
@@fbiagent9544 The absolute vast majority of tank losses are to mines, artillery, and now drones. What's not sensible about the Russian design? It just looks to me like they're addressing their biggest problems first from an economical standpoint. There isn't even a production model yet, these are basically prototypes.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Problem is they're not adressing any of the issues you just talked about, there's no anti drone system, there's no mine detection or clearing equipment. I'm not saying other tanks do have these features currently, but because it is a new generation of tank I think it should at least have an answer to these threats.
I'm aware the T-14 is not in large scale production just yet. Maybe they will adress these issues, but this version does not at the moment so thats why i am talking about it.
Tank concepts shown at Eurosatory commonly featured anti drone systems.
Also keep in mind, while these systems may be expensive, losing a whole tank to a drone is alot more expensive.
@@fbiagent9544 You know they're not addressing these problems how? I don't see any production models that have come out that affirms what you're claiming. We quite literally see ECM systems on their other MBTs so what has you so certain they're doing absolutely nothing to address these issues for the Armata series? Does that make sense to you or do you think the Russians are just st"pid? Did they just forget?