Honestly, nothing will be known about the tank until an angry russian leaks the manual on warthunder
@irinaluchianova3015
Ай бұрын
🤣
@The_ZeroLine
Ай бұрын
This joke for some reason never gets old despite being under basically any speculation about not only armored vehicles, but so many weapons.
@getsideways7257
Ай бұрын
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.
@tiortedrootsky
Ай бұрын
So sad that everybody knows about this incident. Much less chance it ever happen again.
@DanskerneFraDanmark
Ай бұрын
@@tiortedrootskyit have happened 20 times already
@elzheimi2266
Ай бұрын
It is also protected by a warehouse 1000km away from every frontline.
@captainhadd0ck
Ай бұрын
Haha - brilliant comment 👍🤣🤣
@VonLedigsberg
Ай бұрын
Warehouses Walls are thiccer than the T14s armor.
@User-oq7yi
7 күн бұрын
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.
@Aexgamer48
2 күн бұрын
The tanks are being used in the front, reason of multiple losses.@User-oq7yi
@elzheimi2266
Күн бұрын
@@User-oq7yi haha yes sure. At least they can roll; not like the armata who could not even make it across the red square!
@user-ur4rp3bh1g
Ай бұрын
this means, according to gaijin, it must be impenetrable from all angles.
@user-su6ts9wm1h
Ай бұрын
like the leo turret?
@raketny_hvost
Ай бұрын
Just like leo1 or abrams when hit by 152mm crowbar?
@jerryalbus1492
Ай бұрын
@@raketny_hvost tf are you guys on about
@raketny_hvost
Ай бұрын
@@jerryalbus1492 it's called gajopium
@treycotter
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@sangmoon2464
Ай бұрын
They don't have to worry about the armor if they don't build the tank
@kunsif
Ай бұрын
Correct they are wanting to build t80 again but with some modification.😊😊
@YaxCore
5 күн бұрын
they have 35+ armata tanks what are you on about. some even with 152mm cannons
@sangmoon2464
5 күн бұрын
@@YaxCore Where are they? If they are in Ukraine, their contribution isn't even noticeable.
@tirushone6446
Ай бұрын
Gijian's research guys seeing these images: write that down! write that down!
@brandonwilson896
Ай бұрын
nope. more like DESTROY THIS FILM COMRADE!
@ryangoslingIRL
Ай бұрын
Knowing their history with russian vehicles they will not be writing anything down
@nuclearTANK
Ай бұрын
Something got leaked to Gaijin forums
@AlucardPina
Ай бұрын
Pure gold
@riccardomariani9648
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
Lazerpig: the t-14 armor thickness is less than the honda jazz armor
@evgenijmarshal180
Ай бұрын
Lazerpig thickness has More Armour then the German Mouse Tank
@jahnahjarvis2963
Ай бұрын
I hope he is NEVER forgiven for having made that ""mistake""
@some_dudes8138
Ай бұрын
@@jahnahjarvis2963that just propaganda they make the tank looks bad bcs from russia 😂
@kampsie1841
Ай бұрын
@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
@toninhosoldierhelmet4033
Ай бұрын
lmao, i know lazerpig is the bumbling baboon of the bunch but the fact that he is right one this aspect is absolutely hilarious.
@lutendoxd3987
Ай бұрын
They really made that "No armor is best armor" build💀
@pilotmanpaul
Ай бұрын
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.
@tommix6016
Ай бұрын
Next logical development fot the tank is the fitting of bikini armour.
@ILoveforGames
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@chrishilton3626
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@joshuaamado559
Ай бұрын
Add T14 to war thunder and watch the actual armor specs get leaked
@silexa3222
Ай бұрын
T-14 Armata gonna be in War Thunder before it sees the actual battlefield
@user-vu9xl2yz4s
Ай бұрын
& 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.
@jacaredosvudu1638
Ай бұрын
We boutta get GTA 6 before the Armata reaches combat 💀
@foxy-48514
Ай бұрын
@@user-vu9xl2yz4si can smell the baguette
@eddypan8
Ай бұрын
1stRussian scientists "how can we protect it from fpv drones"? 2nd Russian scientist "we can build a metal shed around it"
@Notrusbot
Ай бұрын
Why then have the “best” scientists in the world not yet come up with a defense and passed it on to the Ukrainians?
@vodkanet7533
Ай бұрын
Or you can roll like abrams and have nothing 😂 arrogance and stupidity. Cages work, regardless of how people think they look
@StalkersAlt
Ай бұрын
@@vodkanet7533 you instantly took offence over a joke, that didnt mean any lmao. classic Vatnik
@fabio4465
Ай бұрын
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.
@FoulPet
Ай бұрын
@vodkanet7533 lots of videos show how well the cage doesn't work.
@uwillnevahno6837
Ай бұрын
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).
@williamzk9083
Ай бұрын
The Bradley auto canon with DU will penetrate 100mm. It will make a mess of even the front of a tank.
@johanmikkael6903
Ай бұрын
@@williamzk9083 wont sure penetrate the hull, but it will break driver/gunner optics which is suprisingly, vital.
@neutronalchemist3241
Ай бұрын
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.
@LDB670
Ай бұрын
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 $200 FPC drone blowing up your fuel tanks
@Merluch
Ай бұрын
drones are getting as cheap as 50-60$ atp lol
@lolasdm6959
Ай бұрын
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.
@P3RF3CTD3ATH
Ай бұрын
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.
@hi-Larry-ous
Ай бұрын
@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.
@zakzwijn8410
Ай бұрын
Drones are vulnerable to lasers, I can imagine rapid autodetection and tracking for drones after they which are destroyed with high powered lasers
@squareboxcat6796
Ай бұрын
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.
@galicije83
Ай бұрын
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....
@lordgammadonkaargon2830
Ай бұрын
@@galicije83 so the kf51 must be having by far the best armor then with its 59 tons
@springbloom5940
Ай бұрын
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 🤷🏽♀️
@joaopaulovianaladislau4105
Ай бұрын
@@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).
@jonny2954
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@nton8057
Ай бұрын
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
@victor-uranium
Ай бұрын
Very true. Tank on tank doesn't matter, it's all about the drones.
@fabio4465
Ай бұрын
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.
@nikolaideianov5092
Ай бұрын
@@fabio4465its been canceled
@melgross
Ай бұрын
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?
@Muschelschubs3r
Ай бұрын
That must be why the crew access hatch is hydraulic...and why the APS only covers the frontal arc. Genius. Lay off the copium.
@liquidhalo
20 күн бұрын
Videos about T-14 like this remind me of videos breaking down science fiction space ships. They don't exist either.
@catonpillow
Ай бұрын
I think, at this point, Armata will be skipped for something much lighter and drone orientated.
@ProfessorFickle
Ай бұрын
BMP-T terminator did not do well with early drones
@thomashaapalainen4108
Ай бұрын
With what budget?
@Azerkeux
Ай бұрын
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
@templarkbigdmcm4481
Ай бұрын
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
@megakong3865
Ай бұрын
@@thomashaapalainen4108 Budget doesn't matter all that much in war economy, knowhow, goods availability and tech export matter more
@c.j.1089
Ай бұрын
The T-14 will never see combat, it is a prototype that will never be made.
@GlopPlopJop
Ай бұрын
HEAT, HESH, and HE is gonna have a field day with this tank with that paper turret armor
@rushfortacos
Ай бұрын
Remember like 6 years ago this tank was said to be 30 years ahead of any western tanks by all the analysts...
@knowahnosenothing4862
Ай бұрын
Amazed to find out how much of a lemon it is.
@eddgar-ce3md
Ай бұрын
What analysts ? Everyone knew it was nothing more than vaporware.
@El_Locoroco
Ай бұрын
Don't fall for Russian Propaganda.
@cdgncgn
Ай бұрын
western tanks are 1970s, 30 years ahead - 2000s. Just about right :)
@AquaNomad34
Ай бұрын
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 😂
@TheArklyte
Ай бұрын
So... they just copied Object 187 hull? And it took them two decades to do so?
@Mrbimmer11
Ай бұрын
DONT FORGET THE PORSCHE TIGER ENGINE FROM 1941😂😂😂😂 THE WERY UNRELIABLE ENGINE 😂😂😂😂😂
@TheArklyte
Ай бұрын
@@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:(
@nikosthanopoulos2921
Ай бұрын
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?
@pacianooo3250
Ай бұрын
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.
@BARelement
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@FlyboyHelosim
Ай бұрын
Honestly who cares? It's just fun to speculate, I guess...
@ericquiabazza2608
Ай бұрын
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?
@eddgar-ce3md
Ай бұрын
@@BARelement Their ministry of defense announced that they cancelled the T-14 program. It was never anything more than vaporware.
@ImRandomDude
Ай бұрын
last time I was this early, Crimea belonged to otomans
@perfectcell1157
Ай бұрын
the ottomans reached crimea ??? holy shit never knew they went this far into eastern europe
@penelopegreene
Ай бұрын
Heh.
@wallachia4797
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@Ig_nis
Ай бұрын
u mean the byzantine empire?
@ImRandomDude
Ай бұрын
@@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
@scrubsrc4084
Ай бұрын
Dont forget we are assuming the hard kill system actually works
@erikjohansson4275
Ай бұрын
It probably works but not against APFSDS like they claim.
@BARelement
Ай бұрын
@@erikjohansson4275The APS doesn’t seem to be able to target FPVs above it. Just frontal, and side shot.
@emirbenaissa3441
Ай бұрын
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.
@ajstyles5704
Ай бұрын
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?
@The_ZeroLine
Ай бұрын
@@ajstyles5704Your tone makes it sound like he was defending the tank.
@stolek6908
Ай бұрын
WTF is structural simulation engineer ? is that some kind of yooutube expert that learned FEM and now is smart.
@rxzxqx6982
Ай бұрын
don't forget that those FEM youtubers can assign a different materials for the armor
@ajstyles5704
Ай бұрын
@@The_ZeroLine who cares about the tone. What do you think? Without giving biased statement?
@TaraWert1
Ай бұрын
Shocking the AliExpress tank turns out even worse.
@d3fcon_1
Ай бұрын
This tank isn't meant to be in production, it's more of the corruption project
@stupidburp
Ай бұрын
Corruption and deception
@CyberneticArgumentCreator
Ай бұрын
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.
@alexturnbackthearmy1907
Ай бұрын
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.
@emperorofghost
Ай бұрын
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907I agree!
@emperorofghost
Ай бұрын
Thanks for saving us time!
@ghost963cz
Ай бұрын
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 well it wont have any, since the project was cancelled
@alexturnbackthearmy1907
Ай бұрын
@@ghost963cz Not canceled, sent for re-work. T-90 is good, but it doesnt have much life in it left.
@megakong3865
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
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.
@vaclavjebavy5118
Ай бұрын
@@MostlyPennyCat " No tank can show up on the battlefield." That's why they... Keep appearing.
@tunisiandom9318
Ай бұрын
@@MostlyPennyCat yes ... the crew is just barbequed inside of western tanks XD
@saint8257
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@lks999
Ай бұрын
@@MostlyPennyCat bem, então não há diferença
@Brother_Nihilus
Ай бұрын
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.
@andreilazar2800
Ай бұрын
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
@Brother_Nihilus
Ай бұрын
@@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
@levilastun829
Ай бұрын
@@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
Ай бұрын
They might be all retried because of the M1A2R purchase and maybe the of the future/posible purchase k2 black panther.Maybe some k2s are gonna be made in poland or south korea and the rest in romania
@levilastun829
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@dimasainz7775
Ай бұрын
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and speculation, but the results of real battles are the perfect answer to the capabilities of the weapons
@alexnderrrthewoke4479
Ай бұрын
100%
@hansshekelstein9450
Ай бұрын
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.
@Trve_Kvlt
Ай бұрын
@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.
@notusneo
Ай бұрын
So the t-14 need to be in the real battlefield in the first place to judge its real capabilities then?
@vanjamenadzer
Ай бұрын
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.
@CallOfCutie69
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
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
@MrJC1
Ай бұрын
@@doltBmB🤣🤣🤣
@neutronalchemist3241
Ай бұрын
@@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
18 күн бұрын
T-14 would have been cutting edge in 2005 maybe. Now it's just an obsolete prototype
@neutronalchemist3241
18 күн бұрын
@@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.
@kevinstroup
Ай бұрын
The Russians lied ?!? OMG ! Who would have ever guessed that?
@paulwilson8061
Ай бұрын
Who doesnt lie? Ukrainians? Especially about their relations with the republics of Donbas since 2014.
@AmelpsXett
Ай бұрын
@@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
@winters5052
Ай бұрын
TIL during Operation Desert Storm, the M2 Bradley performed more tank kills than the Abrams
@dhanu_4539
Ай бұрын
With ATGMs
@MostlyPennyCat
Ай бұрын
@@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
@blitzkrieg2142k
Ай бұрын
@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.
@dhanu_4539
Ай бұрын
@@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
@MostlyPennyCat
Ай бұрын
@@dhanu_4539 I bet you could shoot out the APS and disable the gun with the 25mm, backup and hit it with a TOW! 🤩
@Lomhow
Ай бұрын
The simulated round hitting has an incredibly uncomfortable amount of penetration.
@CalgarGTX
Ай бұрын
We were so wrong... we thought it was egg carton but it's actually air because they aren't making any. Rookie mistake.
@Salamandra40k
Ай бұрын
2:17 MY BOY DEJMIAN XYZ MAKING IT ONTO THE SCENE WITH THIS ONE 🗣🗣🗣🗣
@operaatio5117
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
I wonder how devastating 20mm hits on the turret are.
@operaatio5117
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755
Ай бұрын
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.
@neutronalchemist3241
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@alienmorality
Ай бұрын
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 The turret is the most common thing hit
@SteelPanzer
Ай бұрын
They sacrificed armor for stealth technology.
@LastGoatKnight
Ай бұрын
So stealthy that they doesn't even show up in Victory day parades😂
@JeffBilkins
Ай бұрын
The stealth is so good they forget where they parked it.
@jimmiekarlsson4458
Ай бұрын
Sounds like a rather dumb thing to do in this case. Considering that there is "stealth" things around u can just put over your tank to make it less visible for Infrared, and such things. One example is the CV90 IFV that has camo u put over the tank to fk IF´s up
@somerandomboibackup6086
Ай бұрын
the T-90M Nagitka cover (idk remember the name) does the same trick lol
@paulsteaven
Ай бұрын
It's very stealthy tho, that's why we only saw few of them like Su-57.
@Ironpancakemoose
26 күн бұрын
“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.”
@Crazy-HouseTV
Ай бұрын
T-14 Armata can't hurt you, it doesn't exist, really.
@novinovic298
Ай бұрын
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.
@mowabb
Ай бұрын
I don’t remember anyone saying that. I always heard 900mm without era and over 1m with era
@antimatter4733
Ай бұрын
Literally nothing here gives any indication about the effective protection of the composite armor...
@novinovic298
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@tunisiandom9318
Ай бұрын
@@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)
@iansysoev9462
Ай бұрын
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
@user-hz4ky8js2n
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
By 2030 Russia will already have fallen apart it seems
@user-hz4ky8js2n
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@TomoreniusTom
Ай бұрын
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.
@TomoreniusTom
Ай бұрын
@@user-hz4ky8js2noh 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?
@user-hz4ky8js2n
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@dvgsun
Ай бұрын
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.
@MarcinP2
Ай бұрын
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.
@PASTRAMIKick
Ай бұрын
yeah that's evident, the US ERA actually explodes and counters the force with another force
@rinaldoman3331
Ай бұрын
@@PASTRAMIKick US ERA works only against HEAT rounds. Only Ukraine, China and Russia have decent ERA against Kinetic rounds.
@Pajarotactico
Ай бұрын
The tank can't be "worse" if it doesnt even exist edit: i have made mad both, NAFOs and Putin Bots, feels good
@kwaii_gamer
Ай бұрын
It exists there are 8 of them :-)
@jaxfet3
Ай бұрын
@@kwaii_gamerthere*
@kwaii_gamer
Ай бұрын
@@jaxfet3 Thank you corrected
@kuunoooo7293
Ай бұрын
Around 40 to 50 but sure@@kwaii_gamer
@kwaii_gamer
Ай бұрын
@@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
@Barbarian75
Ай бұрын
Love discussion about an imaginary friend... tank. I meant tank. 🤣
@cashzloty2383
Ай бұрын
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
@paulsteven4551
Ай бұрын
How many T-14 is russia using in the war? Same number of SU-57's.
@melgross
Ай бұрын
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.
@VarenvelDarakus
Ай бұрын
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.
@KekusMagnus
Ай бұрын
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
@olisk-jy9rz
Ай бұрын
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.
@P3RF3CTD3ATH
Ай бұрын
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.
@undefinedxx55
Ай бұрын
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
@BigBruh47
Ай бұрын
So those "monolith" from Stalker now make ERA armor for Russians . Damm
@varvarith3090
Ай бұрын
В БОЙ, ЗАЩИТНИКИ МОНОЛИТА!
@tigriukasinlove
Ай бұрын
@@varvarith3090 xD
@jarednarco4026
Ай бұрын
"Trust nobody except The Monolith and your brothers... nobody."
@HavingFunYet-zc8wb
Ай бұрын
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
@AdrianOkay
Ай бұрын
@@HavingFunYet-zc8wb i read this in gollum voice
@-WAFFLEdaMAN-
Ай бұрын
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.
@skaldlouiscyphre2453
Ай бұрын
TL;DR: Even Lazerpig over-estimated the T-14s armour.
@AmericansElite
Ай бұрын
overestimated?
@alienmorality
Ай бұрын
@@AmericansElite vastly yes
@yutakago1736
Ай бұрын
The clues are obvious. (1) There are no mass production of T-14. (2) China don't bother to copy the T-14 design.
@matfax
Ай бұрын
1 is just typical for the Russian pretension, but 2 is convincing. Not even North Korea copied it.
@HippoBean
Ай бұрын
@@matfax it would be really funny if the North Korean Cheonma-2 is actually better than the T-14
@unscinfinitydropshippalmer6146
Ай бұрын
@@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
@fennoman9241
Ай бұрын
@@unscinfinitydropshippalmer6146 China definitely copies before something being approved, stop trolling bruh.
@kanestalin7246
Ай бұрын
China is not focused on a new Mbt currently and they already have the ZTZ99A to fill the void so.
@jammygamer8961
Ай бұрын
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
@RenanMendes-zd8hj
Ай бұрын
At least they reach the contact line when necessary, but western tanks on the other hand... LOL
@bigfella9034
Ай бұрын
@@RenanMendes-zd8hjThere’s videos of m1a2s destroying t-90s in combat. The t-14 never saw combat in the past 3 years.
@RenanMendes-zd8hj
Ай бұрын
@@bigfella9034 LOL and there is a video of me downing a helicopter with an arrow
@venator5
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@tylersmith1468
Ай бұрын
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.
@johndoeyedoe
Ай бұрын
Who cares. It isnt even in production. It barely passed prototype.
@toddgriffin3037
Ай бұрын
"Might not be as good as thought." Who ever thought a 34-ton MBT was going to be good?
@jonny2954
Ай бұрын
40-50 ton.
@toddgriffin3037
Ай бұрын
@@jonny2954 Still.
@alberthoogendoorn2396
16 күн бұрын
Life in a T14 tank is less than a 4 minutes. Have a nice ride bro.
@juusolatva
Ай бұрын
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.
@kuroneko9710
19 күн бұрын
It is not worse than we thought or better than we thought... It simply does not exist! It is a failed project. Nothing more.
@1KiloDepartment
Ай бұрын
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
@listerdave1240
27 күн бұрын
The T-14 has the best protection possible, distance. It is always out of range from enemy fire.
@Paul_Sergeyev
Ай бұрын
Now it makes sense why T-90M is still the Russian MBT while Armata is not in large production. P.S. I think it needs a new transmission, low reactive propellant, armor upgrades and it will be good to go. From what I saw the reports from the crews are already very favourable. I also don't get why they didn't make a T-90M type well protected turret for the new T-80s.
@fearlesspotato3429
Ай бұрын
Main battle tank? Last year Russia produced only 80 T90s while at the same time they reactivated 500 T55s 200 T62s and produced over 300 T72s If any the T72 is the Russian main battle tank. T90 is just an expensive support tank.
@tomasg4623
Ай бұрын
@@fearlesspotato3429no new t72s were produced.
@dhanu_4539
Ай бұрын
@@fearlesspotato3429 where did you get those numbers from btw
@deltatrooper111
Ай бұрын
yeah theyve only been upgraded into the T-72B3@@tomasg4623
@Rrgr5
Ай бұрын
In my humble opinion, they probably ought to upgrade the T90 and T80 with a similar turret, like General Dynamics is about to do with the Abrams, maybe the engine pack will go too, but that's it, T-14 is larger than those tanks and the considerable difference he offers can be implemented in those too.
@pilotmanpaul
Ай бұрын
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.
@QualityPen
Ай бұрын
It’s not meant to be switchable, it’s meant to simplify manufacturing, logistics, and salvaging.
@Klovaneer
Ай бұрын
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.
@cellevangiel5973
28 күн бұрын
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.
@GeneralLee131
Ай бұрын
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.
@knowahnosenothing4862
Ай бұрын
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.
@mrSvob75A
Ай бұрын
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.
@SgtBeltfed
Ай бұрын
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.
@saint8257
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@gabenjamin4052
Ай бұрын
@@SgtBeltfed Special Demilitarization of Russia.
@aaroncruz9181
Ай бұрын
Basically the AN-94 of tanks.
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755
Ай бұрын
@@aaroncruz9181 No? It's not a super weapon, it's a modular and industrially efficient platform.
@abdullah_750
Ай бұрын
can you share the link to this document?
@maciej2c
Ай бұрын
-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
@Taketimeout3
Ай бұрын
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.
@DoubleFractals
Ай бұрын
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.
@RhomasTotevenaar
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
@@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
@levilastun829
Ай бұрын
@@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
@saucy743
Ай бұрын
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.
@schwarzflammenkaiser2347
Ай бұрын
Could be filled with anything really given the corruption in the russian military.
@egoalter1276
Ай бұрын
I would honestly expect them to be filled with textolite. Fiberglass composite seems to eb the russian way for tank armour.
@saucy743
Ай бұрын
@@egoalter1276 Fair point, but then i also expect RHA or HHA plates in there also, like the T-80U's hull armour
@zacharychoo
3 күн бұрын
The amount of Russia bots out there proclaiming the superiority of Russian T72s are crazy
@yoface2537
Ай бұрын
Correction, how good they CLAIM it is, remember this is Russia we are talking about
@HappyVibes535
Ай бұрын
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.
@inurmomsbedroom123
Ай бұрын
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.
@routdog72
Ай бұрын
@@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
@olisk-jy9rz
Ай бұрын
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
@KekusMagnus
Ай бұрын
Lousy ideologised nonsence. NATO is always ahead because maintaining global western hegemony requires the world's most powerful military
@HappyVibes535
Ай бұрын
@@olisk-jy9rz Russian cope lol. Cry me a Volga River, lmao.
@simonlind44
Ай бұрын
Surprised Pikachu face..
@AlexOnTheSide183
Ай бұрын
The T-14 had chances before the war. I reckon the T-15 Heavy IFV has higher chances of entering production than the T-14. The T-14 , already , is outdated. Like most other tanks. Sure , I could slap a Jammer on the top and be safe from drones , but I can also do that with a T-55. And the T-55 will be just as effective at shooting a bunker in a trench as a T-14. ( Im over simplyfing , but im just trying to get the general idea across)
@Erusean_pilot
Ай бұрын
The main reason jammers arent used on tanks, is because once the drone gets close enough to get jammed, it is already on the tank. If it does get jammed, it will just keep flying in a straight line, still hitting the tank
@AlexOnTheSide183
Ай бұрын
@@Erusean_pilot Well , depending on the approach angle , it could work. If the tank is driving fast enough and the drone approaches from the side , it might hit the ground behind it. But it might also hit the engine deck. Drone jammers arent a fix it all. More of a stop gap. But a T-14 would do just as well as a T-72 does againts drones. Thats why I said I think the Armata isnt the tank of the future. Just like all the NATO countries concept tanks , all futuristic looking. I think the future of the tank , might just be a bunch of cheap tanks , turned into remote controled vehicles. Both Ukraine and Russia have already been testing this idea.
@Erusean_pilot
Ай бұрын
@@AlexOnTheSide183 completely correct
@johanmetreus1268
Ай бұрын
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.
@alikaraahmet5050
Ай бұрын
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
@jonny2954
Ай бұрын
Yeah, these are just steel witness plates.
@SpaalKodaav
Ай бұрын
"how many times would an APC penetrate a MBT homie is coping so hard he forgot about Desert Storm
@dogsnads5634
Ай бұрын
And multiple videos of Ukrainian BTR-3 dismantling T-72...
@AquaNomad34
Ай бұрын
Your argument that there are not many cases of IFVs engaging (or even destroying) enemy tanks being very rare, is because there are not even many wars where modern IFVs have been used in combat against enemy armored tanks in the first place Basically, the Ukriane war is the first war in modern history where modern armored vehicles are even used on the battlefield against each other, so of course there are still not many incidents where IFVs and tanks engage each other, since they have never been directly used in combat before. The only other wars where modern IFVs have been used was the Iraq War (1991 and 2003) but both those wars were extremely one-sided and unfair since the USA and Britain are some of the most powerful militaries in the world, while Iraq is relatively weak (is not even in the Top20 most powerful countries to begin with).... So if there were more wars with modern armored vehicles engaging each other (and both sides have modern militaries equally) then there would be many more such incidents of IFVs engaging (and even destroying) enemy Tanks So it's just a matter of how many such scenarios there would be, that would result in more such incidents of IFV engaging and destroying enemy tnsks (and of course the other way around)
@tackytrooper
Ай бұрын
Also the drone question is really just begging for an automated CWIS mini-turret containing an auto shotgun.
@AmericansElite
Ай бұрын
that would be sick
@egoalter1276
Ай бұрын
I believe Drozd used to operate with a CIWS system. Missile based APS seems to have been universally decided as the superior hardkill method.
@tackytrooper
Ай бұрын
@@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...
@handsomeivan1980
Ай бұрын
I imagine there's definitely composite in there than just empty space. This is definitely much more effective than T-80 and T-72 based hulls As for how much I don't know. But seeing as the improved ERA, and gaps it looks like it's goal is to break up penetraters as much as possible. Namely APFSDS. If we imagine there was a M829A5 this looks like it's made to be resistant to coming and developing APFSDS. though that drone protection on the turret would be much much needed, as that's what's going to see tanks more nowadays anyways
@VVV85650
Ай бұрын
СМИ: Т14 на самом деле всего лишь модернизированный советский танк так как имеет крутящуюся башню и гусенницы как это было на Т34.
@yegorgribenuke6853
Ай бұрын
Так и будет, хаха
@Neukend
Ай бұрын
На самом деле под всеми навесными блоками дз скрывается бт7. Люди, проснитесь! Распространяйте правду!
@Ren_Jenkinss
Ай бұрын
Шутки шутками, но по ощущениям, это уже начинает походить на правду.
@user-vu9xl2yz4s
Ай бұрын
Not even a T34 : A t34 can fire and still running. The Armata can't.
@Alte.Kameraden
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
That never happens though.
@Alte.Kameraden
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@cherrypoptart2001
Ай бұрын
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.
@egoalter1276
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@egoalter1276
Ай бұрын
@@cherrypoptart2001 And yet they still cant seem to make anything that surpassed their own peak of tank design in the 80s.
@Waltham1892
Ай бұрын
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.
@FuzDoesStuff
Ай бұрын
The Russian government has been saying for a good while they would be deploying them to Ukraine (Never has been deployed).
@FuzDoesStuff
Ай бұрын
Some else to note is that they also claimed it was deployed during the Syrian War (it wasn’t)
@jacklarkson4505
Ай бұрын
new german 130 mm cannon will penetrate that front armor like a breakfast cake.
@GrindThunderer
Ай бұрын
The L/55 already can
@jacklarkson4505
Ай бұрын
@@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)
@knowahnosenothing4862
Ай бұрын
@@GrindThunderer DM73 800mm apparently.
@GrindThunderer
Ай бұрын
@@knowahnosenothing4862 imagine if it fired m829a4…
@swe1733
Ай бұрын
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.
@alexgavrikov4888
Ай бұрын
Why need armor, if can build matryoshka metal sheds?
@fl0G2
Ай бұрын
it just seems like the T14 is an light/medium tank rather than an MBT
@Fred_the_1996
Ай бұрын
It's heavy as hell though
@dhanu_4539
Ай бұрын
Can't say that because of the gun calibre
@kazuviking
Ай бұрын
More like an ifv with an unmanned turret with that nonexsitent armor.
@dhanu_4539
Ай бұрын
@@kazuviking it's a tank because it can dish out damage not just because it can survive damage. I guess the Sherman and T 34 are also IFVs then?
@Void_Dreamwalker
Ай бұрын
The hull of a heavy tank, a turret of a medium tank and a gun of a tank destroyer
@romanberkutov2592
Ай бұрын
Знаете что я е увидел? Источники и ссылки на 2:38 в документе рассматривается компоновочная схема, для улучшения масса-броня показателя. Там нет и слова об испытаниях динамической защиты 2:43 МАКЕТ защиты структуры здесь автор говорит что "это очевидно что это дз монолит" эм, что автору мешает посмотреть толщину модуля с реальных т90? На картинке явно МАКЕТ аахахахахахахаах 3:07 блять, вся статья делалась для того, чтобы подтвердить расчеты моделей. Буквально: математическое моделирование позволит сэкономить на натурных испытаниях" ахахахахахахаха Бля дл канала походу Армата это не танк из стали на гусеницах, а макет, да?))))))))) У нас есть макет брони, вдумайтесь МАКЕТ! для обработки компоновки брони и подтверждения данных математической модели. ВОПРОС а причем здесь АРМАТА???))))))))) 5:50 может поделишься источником "очень достоверных" фотографий сделанных видимо в блендере)))
@roma4ka872
Ай бұрын
This is just a random picture, maybe there is some more reliable information?
@roma4ka872
Ай бұрын
the documents look like a thesis for a university graduate
@DerDrecksack87
Ай бұрын
To my understanding the T-14 went from pre series prototype to testbed only, i dont think it will be ever mass produced or used on the frontlines except for performance measurement. If anything the T15 or whatever comes after it will probably go into production, nevermind that all the experience with drones and top attack ATGMs are not reflected much in the old school T14 design wich will change in any following productions.
@McRocket
Ай бұрын
Thank you for this. The T-14 fascinates me. And you seem the best source on it that I know of. ☮
@photoisca7386
Ай бұрын
Talks about MBT getting penetrated by auto-cannon, shows Challenger tank. Red Effect doesn't hide the fact he detests anything British. Leopard isn't doing that well, nor is Abrams. It must have been hard admitting the T-14 is a paper tiger.
@SDZ675
Ай бұрын
T-14 doesn't really need any armor if it only shows up in parades.
@ninwiz45
Ай бұрын
holy wow, how long as RedEffect used svard in his outro??? That was an awesome surprise!
@Erik-zh7rk
Ай бұрын
Russia? Over reporting the capabilities of its weapon systems? Nooooo
@schnitzel_enjoyer
Ай бұрын
"T14 is not so good" Gaijin: Yeah add it to 3.0 br
@pilotmanpaul
Ай бұрын
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.
@bruhmomentum2901
Ай бұрын
@@pilotmanpaul Aint it max speed is like 50 km/h? And like absolute no proof that it went any faster than 50km/h?
@ops3892
Ай бұрын
@@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!
@kanestalin7246
Ай бұрын
@@pilotmanpaulits not lightweight its heavier than the T90M
@schnitzel_enjoyer
Ай бұрын
@@pilotmanpaul The joke flew over your head bud..
@samseven5260
Ай бұрын
Not sure what an “ulticannon” is, but, …. as a Bradley gunner, I’m thinking it’s a 25mm gun.
@thememe986
Ай бұрын
Problem is we can't know anything specifically about it. There are two reasons for that, the russian mod has not announced any information publicly and most testing or documentation is not released or leaked. Additionally it has not been deployed to any combat yet and is still in the testing phase. In other words, there is no way of knowing the specs of the t14 and anyone who claims to actually know this information is talking atraight out of their ass😂 additionally anything we do know is more than likely outdated information which may or may not be accurate to the current model they're using.
@sophiekadams
Ай бұрын
War Thunder adding this with 500mm of kinetic protection on the turret face
@alexturnbackthearmy1907
Ай бұрын
Meanwhile merkava: (they completely fucked its armor)
@kiq4767
Ай бұрын
it won't even be able to tank 34
@PitFriend1
Ай бұрын
A Russian super weapon being nowhere near as good as it was hyped up to be? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! Well maybe not that shocked.
@pilotmanpaul
Ай бұрын
Watch the video and stop sniffing the Kool Aid.
@roshanwadasinghe7294
Ай бұрын
Just like all the Nato game changers 😂
@PlaceHolder-br9pz
Ай бұрын
@@roshanwadasinghe7294 They've had a noticeable effect on the battlefield. In stark contrast to Poseidon, Terminator or Armata
@sting2death2
Ай бұрын
@@PlaceHolder-br9pz What noticeable effect? Reaching Moscow on a trailer?
@Castrix99
Ай бұрын
@PlaceHolder-br9pz What noticeable effect? Being an entertaining pinata for Russian drones? Western equipment has been delivered in such low numbers it's barely made an impact on the war at all
Пікірлер: 2,8 М.