Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3BQlawo Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code IMPACTFORCE to get for free: -20 days of Premium Account, -Japanese Tier III cruiser Tenryū, -Port slot, and Commander -Unlock a series of simple combat missions to unlock additional awards which includes the following: -U.S. Tier VII cruiser Boise -7x Supercontainers -40,000,000 Credits -1,000,000 Elite Commander XP Applicable to new users only.
WOWs and graphics? Like have you seen how the same ships look in war thunder? Don't get me wrong WOWS is still a way better naval game, but boy snail ships are 10x more modeled since ages.
I think the auto loader like in the T72 should be done away with and Russia should do it more like in the French Leclerc. Anyway I don't think Russia will have enough roubles to make this tank since they couldn't get the Armarta production up and running.
@@johnclay2716 depends on what you define as perfect. Using a already in production chassis is good. Is it prefect? Maybe not, you could most likely produce a hull that is better suited for this special machine. But then you need to set up a completly new production line.
Using tanks as the Russians is dead but tanks have never been. Doing everything drone style is kinda good as the operators are very valuable but due to some limiting things with that as mentioned in the video makes it so the best is probably a mix. But don't make much sense for Russia going this route as they don't seem to care about loses and there are way more efficient things to minimize it before pouring money into stuff like this.
If you use it like Russia, then yeah, tank is dead. However if you actually have a higher thinking capacity than table, then it's still a great piece of equipment perfectly able to complete it's assigned tasks
I just feel like this was an inevitable proposal - it's a 'viable' tactical use of the vehicles in their thinking, the conversion would be cheapish and performed using assets they (maybe idk) can actually produce and using available facilities etc. I doubt it'll happen though.
Unmanned vehicles aren't novel concepts, I believe the soviets had tested remotely operated light tanks in the inter-war period; The issue has always been the ability to control vehicles over long distances, input delay, visibility (when using cameras, when compared with the mk1 eyeball) and automated mechanisms to make the vehicle truly effective, even when the crew is at a safe distance.
@@m-zn2iooh, just something i picked up from Nicolas Moran, he uses the phrase quite often (usually when talking about fighting from AFVs head-out or buttoned-up).
germans had remote controlled (cable) land drones in ww2. but those did not succeed. of course there was no camera on them. im sure that you can put camera on a stick and driver would control vehicle in 3rd person view. such long rigid and thin target should be pretty safe. i dont think control is actually a problem but problem is from how far can you control it and how reliable are you communications.
Drone warfare is going to look alot like a drone-ified ww2. Imagine mass drone bombing waves with fighters and interceptors duking it out, countered by all manner of AAA including straight up flak cannons. It's even more achievable and economical to do it that scale than it was in the 40's. I'm surprised we havent seen it yet at that scale (im talking thousands of involved aircraft). But I'm sure we will get there. Drone trench warfare is right around the corner too ...War never changes.
i don't think this is going to happen in the long term. the only reason why russia is even thinking about these is that ukraine has insufficient modern anti-tank vehicles, so they are forced to use infantry+drone systems to counter tanks. and assault tank would fare extremely bad against and airforce or modern enemy tanks.
@balkanicsense1952 If you cut the barrel down, and leave the same breach, the elevation gear and stabilizer are not going to be happy with a gun that's now very breach heavy. Assuming everything possible is recycled from the T-72, this will cause problems. Wouldn't be the first time that someone put a pipe or fake muzzle break on the end of a gun barrel to balance a gun.
I wonder how reliable it would be if they ever tried fiber-optic wires for tanks as well, I can guess a lot of complications with it, such as getting tangled really fast or running out of wire of course but it would tackle the biggest problems, such as input delay, video quality and jammers. I imagine it would be even better if it had the capability for both regular remote and wire remote control, I can even see it being used with regular relay drones to extend its reach and provide scouting.
You could carry a LOT of wire on the back of the tank, running out wouldn't be an issue. But if the tank ever has to reverse, it will roll over it's own cable cutting it. Plus of course any infantry getting behind you wouldn't even need to bother shooting an RPG in your back, they just cut the wire...
@@jnievele Of course, but that's why it would also be capable of direct remote control as a fall-back mechanism. Besides that, I don't imagine people will run up out of cover to cut your wire often, since the tanks will not be alone.
@keatonwastaken Direct control from where? The cable would be the primary control, but when switching to radio backup the controller would still sit at the same desk. There wouldn't be some guy running behind the tank ready to grab a remote control from the back, the dangers in that are the reason you use a land drone to begin with. As for how enemy anti-tank teams could pop up behind it and cut the cable - that's literally what they train for today already, only they take RPGs and similar short range launchers to shoot the engine. There's training videos of Ukrainian soldiers letting a tank run over their spider hole, then jumping up with their launcher that look pretty much the same as the WW2 videos of German troops training for the same role... And with this remote control tank it would be even easier, as the operator will see even less than the 3 men of a normal crew. That's why tanks normally were supposed to be escorted by infantry, but the videos from Ukraine show that Russia isn't typically doing that. Probably for good reason, too... As a former infantryman, I'd feel quite a bit uncomfortable walking next to a vehicle that's aiming explosive panels at me all the time 😂
@@jnievele I meant direct as in remote, wrong words, whether it be with relays or just regular remote connection. And yeah lol, walking near a tank as Infantry is probably one of the worst tasks, especially ones with ERA. As for the trapping tank thing, I think that'd be fine, as that's not something a manned tank can really avoid as well.
I would imagine that an FPV drone simply targeting the fiber-optic wire neatly laid out on ground behind a slow moving vehicle would sever the connection knocking the tank out
I think the material at the end of the barrel is mainly to balance the gun. They will want the barrel c of g to be in the same place to keep the loads the same
Hey bud, Matsimus did a video where he mentioned how much respect he had for you. I posted a comment saying you and he should do a weekly or monthly podcast. He answered that he'd love to do it. I can take care of all the editing and set-up. Let me know.
@ The point I'm trying to make is maybe think about rebuilding our industries. Maybe think about building and not demolishing factories. I live in the UK, who on paper spends the same on defense as Russia... We can only field 100 tanks, and replace zero..
@@maryginger4877 The Russians wouldn't need all those replacements if they didn't bleed armor. So you're saying essentially, because we're not in a wartime footing, ultimately unbothered by a conflict that doesn't effect us, that Russia is somehow more capable, even though they are actively eating shit and dying? Lol, reach some more
I could be wrong but the rear of the turret looks like a T-72 so the hatches might be there because the whole turret is just a modified version of the T-72 one
@@maryginger4877 Probably to accomodate all the sensors and cameras and whatnot to make the tank remotely operated. Engineers possibly just used T-72 turret diagrams to conceptualize the tank, we have to consider this is just an early development that may very well not make it to prototypes let alone production at all.
Also, i just guessed you still need an enrtrance for maintainance and such. I mean I don't know if its deployment is supposed to be a one way trip. But if it's not, then you might want to check in on your apparatus once in a while. Or as red pointed out to load the autoloader.
@@firstname8637 If it only has a 3km control range, it probably needs a crew inside the tank to get it to and from the battlefield. Need at least a driver and commander so it doesn't run off the road, maybe a gunner if it might need it's gun in an emergency.
I don't know how this thing is gonna fix the problem of mines. Mines is what forces vehicles into columns behind the main minesweeper leader, mines is what turns assault into a slog and turns vehicles into target practice for drones. It is even worse given that drones can now remotely and quickly mine remote locations on the path of assault. And i am not even mentioning tank mines with delayed explosion which are the counter to mechanical minesweepers.
If u look at front of this tank It has some bumper Which is probably armored and gonna get dragged on ground And its most likely heavily reinforced to withstand explosion And if it can go up and down then it can be used as protection for body of tank
"Interesting concept".....it may as well be a chocolate unicorn at this point. If the operator has to be within 3km of this, then he's a dead man in the current battlefield conditions. The controllers RF emission's will either be jammed or attract FPV's like flies to a road-kill. I would say fibre optics is a better option for control, but if your controlling a 45 ton tank with limited visibility then there is high probability of reversing over your own control umbilical.
These robo tanks need some degree of autonomous operation to be practical. Additionally, they need some way for nearby infantry to guide the tanks onto targets.
Literally everyone got thousands of hours of simulation experience, situational awareness, and ability to identify targets from few pixels with the worst graphics.
My exact thought was antenna/sensor suite vulnerability. Engineers will figure something out, I'm sure. The US has a similar project for drone IFVs. I imagine they're working thru similar concerns.
The best assault tank is 100mm short barrel tank. Also you don't need more than 3 - 5 km range since because inside a town you only get distances of a few meters, occasionally you might get a street, few hundred meters. etc. Also APS is important. get a good 20 - 30 mm too for close combat and you good to go...
I feel like the situational awareness problem could be easily solved by adding one or two aerial drones with it. May be that's the "infantry support" this tank will be operating with? Drones can act to relay signal to and from as well.
When a emitter becomes more powerfull its power requirments also get higher And considering the antentas (dont look directional) Drones cannot compete against directional antenna with a generator or maybe even 2 (thats a multikillowwatt transmitter)
not a fan. the shorter gun is a good idea, but isn't it just as vulnerable to drones as every other tank. I was hoping to see a factory-built turtle with a fixed turret.
@@josephkush1032 I don't think so, Russia is going to have to switch platforms eventually. There's nothing particularly wrong with the T-14 it's just too expensive to build but more importantly more expensive to start a new production line. Everyone is going for an automated turret design for their next tank design there's no need for Russia to throw away their lead. This isn't the only conflict they'll be involved in so it can't all be short term.
they gonna use the same chassis as that what mass production is set up for. Making new design means having to make new factories for design. So old design means 1-2 years till it can be massed out, new design means atleast 3-5 years. Mass only after 5 years+
1:58 "situational awareness is much worse" are you click baiting? situational awareness will be exponentially greater since the same remote operator can rely on footage of multiple overhead drones for situational awareness, and the onboard cameras mainly for targeting.
If its an assault tank than its logical to assume it will be in the frontlines, where jammers are pretty much everywhere especially Ukrainian jammers in Kursk for example.
And the big elephant is that as a tank, it will need to work with infantry, and good situational awareness while doing so is basically must have( this tank is a cool idea it just needs way more all around cameras for that)
@@fennoman9241 then those same jammers would already be preventing the tank from operating here in the first place. so the argument is moot. and if the vehicle is to be controlled via a tether, so then can the overhead drones be as well.
@@RandomDeforge Not necessarily. Depends on what freq the tank uses and how its controlled, AI can be used. Wire just wont work, maybe in a sand desert where the tether wont snag. Drones already have issues with snagging.
@@fennoman9241no it does not The freq can be guessed by the antennas and thenhave someone try all the freqs in combat if REALLY needed Ai is how you get ukrainian units to train in fighting while in a carbord box like some low buget scifi film I agree that wire wont work Also the antennas dont look directional ,a directional jammer will always beat a omni directional one Same with radio signals as a whole
* The hatches are likely to access the interior during construction and maintenance. * There needs to be no less situational awareness than in an ordinary tank, given that several camera feeds can be displayed at once to the operators.
@@framed-r9git's good for it's purpose and also better than say the t64, but definitely not perfect. Is ammo racked too easily and has no usable reverse speed. I would even say it could use a bit more armor, it's turret at least, but for that it should get an entirely new, modern turret, which the Russians actually should really consider imo
@@framed-r9g It would be either T-72 with some letter designation or T-25. Real question is how would Uralvagonzavod name a new tank if they were to design it by 2034
my idea for remote tanks: dont even try to stop the RPG or tank rounds - just let them through with soft armor, so it leaves a hole, as it enters and leaves the tank. when the tank is remote controlled with no humans inside, it might not matter if you have holes in the tank, it can still work.
@jhdsfalsjhdfjashdkhvjfldld8301 no it pretty much does. There hasnt been a single significant assault that hasnt been filmed by at least 3 different drones.
There were maybe a dozen at most deployed in Ukraine and it's not like there were many more to begin with. I'd be surprised if most of them weren't out of action one way or another.
Its kind of challenging to film every single battle encounter, especially in a heated battle (other than drones ofcourse). Not sure you can have drones in the sky 24\7 but i am no expert.
I mean the fact that the remote range is 3km doesn't mean that the operator has to be within that range. If you can deal with an extra ~50-100ms of latency they could be anywhere within Russia where there is an internet connection. The only problem you have to solve is creating a bridge between the internet and the control station, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
@@TimothyZanykrussias main advantige in war is mostly that they have more man power Now the ussr fell , so that is already GREATLY reduced But they also cannot manifacture to the level needed (again ussr fell) to stay a global power, their economy 2 times smaller then germany while haveing less then 2 times more people.They cannot maintain a big army , an good airforce and a nuclear stockpile with their economy (they probably cant have more then 1)
This seems to combine drawbacks of old T 72 design with drawback of remote control without many benefits aside from the cheapness. Though Russian T 72s are getting more expensive and rare by every passing day.
Some questionable things: 1. Jammers + remote control doesnt work together. 2. The idea itself is not bad, but being more blind than a crewed vehicle, which are already blind enough can cause a lot of problems. 3. 3 km is decent, but such signals can be tracked and well within drone range, operating this thing for extended periods of time is literally a suicede for the operators. Thats why drone operators usually take as short time as possible with a single mission, then they relocate. 4. Kinda an expensive thing for a country barely having access to microchips. 5. Can be jammed like drones. Anyway the concept is good, we'll see if it ever gets deployed or just remains an idea.
@@emeryhenry1849 Yea, aint no way you are using a fiber optic on a vehicle outside some pure sand desert, tho there heat is an issue. Even drones have snagging issues in Ukraine rn.
The hatches could very well just be the idea to drive the tank around manned, and when going into combat the crew dismounts and drives the tank further unmanned. This would allow the operators to stay mobile and self-propelling, and mount and dismount in the field.
Screw it, make a casemate assault gun based on the T-72 like they did with the SU-85/ISU-152. (T-34/IS chassis) Only need to worry about the direction of one item rather than hull and turret, weight saved means more armor/spaced protection on top from drones.
Two years ago, I said that tanks had two paths to evolve. One was to turn into massive vehicles with indirect fire capability and lots of point defence systems, and the other would be the robotization of older models to make expendable drones. How long until we see the new tank coming with 60-degree gun elevation, onboard radar and the angry r2d2?
T-14 was never said to have entered service. It was a technology demonstrator. Like the 2s38 for instance. like the challenger 3, abrams X or the ascalon system. It's about showing what is possible. Nothing more.
The armata is in service , it just hasn't been deployed to combat There's like 50 of the things rolling around, which is more tanks than some NATO countries have to begin with
The “3 km range” would be from the repeater, so it doesn’t really matter. “One shot and the antennas are gone” doesn’t really work that way either - you can use hidden antennas with worse performance (but with repeater, again, it doesn’t really matter). And drones with optic fibre already fly for 10 km and more - which could be damaged too - but also a tank is more expensive then a 500$ drone, so I’d place several of the ‘connection systems’ at the same time. The biggest problem I see is it’s operational mobility: not every war from now on would be a trench war. But even then it’s solved by placing the operators in the IFV, and trailing it from beyond visual range. But the dumb short barrel “to not hit the trees” and the tractor spoon instead of the mine prowl is giving me the vibe of another media blueprint that will never see mass production. Although love the idea itself: assaulting and breaching enemy lines is one of the most complex and demanding tasks out there, so preserving the crew and letting them gain the experience of dozens of battles seems like a good enough investment to me by itself.
Range of only 3km may indicate a fiber cable being in use to control the tank, possibly in tandem with wireless option since obviously cable can be cut by enemy. As for lack of cameras ect, tank crew may come with own recon drone to solve this. Great video anyhow as usual.
@notaseriousbeaver Issue is with snagging, its already an issue with drones. Just think about this one, any kind of rubble or something and wire goes bye bye.
0:18 russia cares about it’s soldiers?? Where’s russia and what have you done with it?? Edit: It seems I’ve managed to annoy some people of a certain political view and frankly I don’t care, comment at me all you want I have better things to be doing.
@@NATOenthusiast whose low number is that? The real number is roughly 235K KIA 950K WIA in Ukraine, with roughly 185K KIA 785K WIA for Russia. Don't know what strange universe you live in, but go on.
It doesn't. It is possibly the most successful and adaptable tank concept in armoured warfare history. Russia seeks to convert many T72 chassis into useful kit at minimal cost. Teminators are part of this program and an assault tank, able to take two or three hits while spearheading penetration in a heavily defended sector is worth a tryout.
@@andersonarmstrong2650 Pretty much all of the T-72 based wunderwaffe like BMPT-72 have failed in actual combat, been more waste than use. T-72 just isnt a good enough platform for modern warfare, its badly armoured for modern standard and its mobility is just bad.
@@SAarumDoK yep Noone likes war Looking it at anyway Even wanting russia to be destroyed It could be done by getting nato more countrys ,getting nato economys stronger, while leaveing to become like north korea ,if it trys to become as stronger as its boardering countrys then it bankrupts its self, if it doesnt try that then its military will only become older by the year (ending in being like the pz4s used against israel, outdated in every way)
Who could've thoutht that SW AAT could be better unit that whatever a real army wants to field. Can't wait for them to build only 10 models in the next decade.
We have already seen that it is necessary to have a tank like this because the entire front is covered with dragon teeth as well as destroyed vehicles, so obviously something like this is needed to make a passage for other tanks, I also think that there are many more radio jammers on it, as well as various electrical equipment for jamming drones, only with higher power, and this is something that the army was obviously looking for, and as for the cannon, it is there purely to make it possible. He could defend himself if he needed to, but I don't think that's his main purpose.
They will finish the blueprints by 2029, find funds for a first prototype by 2047, build that prototype by 2057, find fuel and ammo by 2059, recruit a crew by 2063, train that crew by 2068, finish testing the prototype by 2073, find money for a factory by 2084, build a factory by 30001 and roll off a first preproduction model by 3010...
I mean the idea is solid imo, even if here it seem like its done on the cheap. But give a concept like that proper drone integration for increased awareness, organic ability to peak over terain and maybe even guide precision munitions as well as signal amplification and it would be some good stuff i think
Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3BQlawo
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code IMPACTFORCE to get for free:
-20 days of Premium Account,
-Japanese Tier III cruiser Tenryū,
-Port slot, and Commander
-Unlock a series of simple combat missions to unlock additional awards which includes the following:
-U.S. Tier VII cruiser Boise
-7x Supercontainers
-40,000,000 Credits
-1,000,000 Elite Commander XP
Applicable to new users only.
Tank duel when tho?
Why are you or YT cowardly blocking/deleting comments with no threats, no cursing and no violence? Are you scared of criticism? Shalom
WOWs and graphics? Like have you seen how the same ships look in war thunder? Don't get me wrong WOWS is still a way better naval game, but boy snail ships are 10x more modeled since ages.
I think the auto loader like in the T72 should be done away with and Russia should do it more like in the French Leclerc. Anyway I don't think Russia will have enough roubles to make this tank since they couldn't get the Armarta production up and running.
I think you might have forgotten to account for the possibility of the tank being controlled via fiberoptic wires
RedEffect just remembered that he has a TH-cam channel.
to be fair there,s not a lot of new things in armoured vehicles world
The was vid were we saw a Russian tank taking g two Ukrainian tanks in close contact @@СахерСалама
sometimes you just have nothing to say.
lol right? there's been quite a few tank on tank engagements since his last video but radio silence from Redeffect
He was probably taking a break during Christmas and new years
no way T-90 AVRE
It's turret looks more like the a T-95 (Object 195).
We got T-95 AVRE on paper before GTA VI
That's what I thought lol like the Centurion AVRE
@@saucy743it’s only lacking a secondary 30mm gun
Sturmgeshutz 2025
it's more like a mix between combat engineering vehicles like AVRE but also like the StuG III for close support
I can't wait for this to be in War Thunder as a paper premium.
My thoughts exactly
It'll be in War Thunder a decade before the Russians can afford to build it and test it.
All gaijin needs to see to add the tank is a 3rd party website to say it exists.
It'll have 0 crew being remotely operated.
Should've been new battlepass tank, M46 sucks
>New Russian tank
>Looks inside
>Another T-72 variant
T-72's are essentially perfect tanks, BMP-2s are essentially perfect IFVs, BTR-82As are perfect APCs
@john too fat
@@johnclay2716 depends on what you define as perfect. Using a already in production chassis is good. Is it prefect? Maybe not, you could most likely produce a hull that is better suited for this special machine. But then you need to set up a completly new production line.
@@johnclay2716 lol no
@@johnclay2716 except they have crawling reverse speed
the war stared with poeple saying the tank is dead because of drones, and has now moved on to drone tanks. Truly revolutionary
Using tanks as the Russians is dead but tanks have never been. Doing everything drone style is kinda good as the operators are very valuable but due to some limiting things with that as mentioned in the video makes it so the best is probably a mix. But don't make much sense for Russia going this route as they don't seem to care about loses and there are way more efficient things to minimize it before pouring money into stuff like this.
The tank has been dead since 1918, but not so much... Long Live the Tank! From a former Tanker.
@@P4hko what a nato bot if we wouldnt care for about casulties we would took kiew long ago!!
If you use it like Russia, then yeah, tank is dead. However if you actually have a higher thinking capacity than table, then it's still a great piece of equipment perfectly able to complete it's assigned tasks
The machine may change but the idea will remain. The tank will be here until ground warfare is no longer a thing
So basicly a remote controlled t72 with some added ERA armour wow and a weird turret
Next time their is a saclos remote controlled tank with 3 km cabel ^^
it still need chicken coop on top
Not much more innovative than an LAV
I just feel like this was an inevitable proposal - it's a 'viable' tactical use of the vehicles in their thinking, the conversion would be cheapish and performed using assets they (maybe idk) can actually produce and using available facilities etc. I doubt it'll happen though.
Unmanned vehicles aren't novel concepts, I believe the soviets had tested remotely operated light tanks in the inter-war period; The issue has always been the ability to control vehicles over long distances, input delay, visibility (when using cameras, when compared with the mk1 eyeball) and automated mechanisms to make the vehicle truly effective, even when the crew is at a safe distance.
Mk.1 eyeball. Ha were you a para by chance?
@@m-zn2iooh, just something i picked up from Nicolas Moran, he uses the phrase quite often (usually when talking about fighting from AFVs head-out or buttoned-up).
We have the technology now, no doubt about it.
Very different today, while I am no expert, I can imagine plenty of ways to improve connection, like relay drones or fiber-optic technology.
germans had remote controlled (cable) land drones in ww2. but those did not succeed. of course there was no camera on them.
im sure that you can put camera on a stick and driver would control vehicle in 3rd person view. such long rigid and thin target should be pretty safe. i dont think control is actually a problem but problem is from how far can you control it and how reliable are you communications.
Great video as always
The legend himself is here
@@ALV694 kissi kiiiissssiiiii kiss😘😘😘
hey matsimus whats up, didnt expect you here :D
Tank drone
Time till we video on Drone tanks 3 months
Oh my gosh, it's the return of the assault tanks! I didn't think it would return, but here we are.
And its remote operated
We've come a full circle.
Battleships when?
Drone warfare is going to look alot like a drone-ified ww2. Imagine mass drone bombing waves with fighters and interceptors duking it out, countered by all manner of AAA including straight up flak cannons. It's even more achievable and economical to do it that scale than it was in the 40's. I'm surprised we havent seen it yet at that scale (im talking thousands of involved aircraft). But I'm sure we will get there. Drone trench warfare is right around the corner too ...War never changes.
i don't think this is going to happen in the long term. the only reason why russia is even thinking about these is that ukraine has insufficient modern anti-tank vehicles, so they are forced to use infantry+drone systems to counter tanks. and assault tank would fare extremely bad against and airforce or modern enemy tanks.
I think the armour on the gun is actually a balance weight to make up for the shorter barrel.
For what?
@balkanicsense1952 If you cut the barrel down, and leave the same breach, the elevation gear and stabilizer are not going to be happy with a gun that's now very breach heavy. Assuming everything possible is recycled from the T-72, this will cause problems. Wouldn't be the first time that someone put a pipe or fake muzzle break on the end of a gun barrel to balance a gun.
Hey that's preety bright idea, i did not thought about that.
Great concept Russia! Now the question is: Can you actually produce and field them?
this ^
You can make the best thing in existence, but making 50 of it to clash against 5000 will only be a waste of time and money.
What are the chances that it’s a t-14 situation again?
I doubt it, it's gonna into the pile of 800 obj concepts that never left paper
Yes, they will probably produce 5 exemplary (3 will be wooden 1:1 scale model)
Its not like its a completely new design like the t14 so they likely can
welcome back Assault Tanks
Just this time they are Ground Drones
@@whitefalcon630 next will be the A.G.R. (Autonomous Ground Robot) and CLAW (Cognitive Land Assault Weapon) from Black Ops 2
@@borisslavk01nolastname91 These robots cannot be compared with the Robot T-72.
This is a true droid tank.
Meanwhile those things in CoD are toys
The OG will always recognize T72B5 "Tutel" as true assault tank!
You mean the Haus?
Placing the gunsight behind armour has the minor side effect of not actually being able to see anything
I think he meant to place it on top of the armour instead of it using up space for potential armour
@@keybore1574yup, just like how they changed the gunsight from the 2a4 in the 2a5
he meant something like 2a5, probably.
@Marshmallow603 but without armor behind the sight, like the arjun.
@@tigerbesteverything ???
Why he looks like a centurion avre
becuase russia is doing a centurion AVRE
I wonder how reliable it would be if they ever tried fiber-optic wires for tanks as well, I can guess a lot of complications with it, such as getting tangled really fast or running out of wire of course but it would tackle the biggest problems, such as input delay, video quality and jammers.
I imagine it would be even better if it had the capability for both regular remote and wire remote control, I can even see it being used with regular relay drones to extend its reach and provide scouting.
You could carry a LOT of wire on the back of the tank, running out wouldn't be an issue. But if the tank ever has to reverse, it will roll over it's own cable cutting it. Plus of course any infantry getting behind you wouldn't even need to bother shooting an RPG in your back, they just cut the wire...
@@jnievele Of course, but that's why it would also be capable of direct remote control as a fall-back mechanism.
Besides that, I don't imagine people will run up out of cover to cut your wire often, since the tanks will not be alone.
@keatonwastaken Direct control from where? The cable would be the primary control, but when switching to radio backup the controller would still sit at the same desk. There wouldn't be some guy running behind the tank ready to grab a remote control from the back, the dangers in that are the reason you use a land drone to begin with.
As for how enemy anti-tank teams could pop up behind it and cut the cable - that's literally what they train for today already, only they take RPGs and similar short range launchers to shoot the engine. There's training videos of Ukrainian soldiers letting a tank run over their spider hole, then jumping up with their launcher that look pretty much the same as the WW2 videos of German troops training for the same role... And with this remote control tank it would be even easier, as the operator will see even less than the 3 men of a normal crew. That's why tanks normally were supposed to be escorted by infantry, but the videos from Ukraine show that Russia isn't typically doing that. Probably for good reason, too... As a former infantryman, I'd feel quite a bit uncomfortable walking next to a vehicle that's aiming explosive panels at me all the time 😂
@@jnievele I meant direct as in remote, wrong words, whether it be with relays or just regular remote connection.
And yeah lol, walking near a tank as Infantry is probably one of the worst tasks, especially ones with ERA.
As for the trapping tank thing, I think that'd be fine, as that's not something a manned tank can really avoid as well.
I would imagine that an FPV drone simply targeting the fiber-optic wire neatly laid out on ground behind a slow moving vehicle would sever the connection knocking the tank out
I think the material at the end of the barrel is mainly to balance the gun. They will want the barrel c of g to be in the same place to keep the loads the same
Hey bud, Matsimus did a video where he mentioned how much respect he had for you. I posted a comment saying you and he should do a weekly or monthly podcast. He answered that he'd love to do it. I can take care of all the editing and set-up. Let me know.
Matsimus is a clueless grifter, his videos are based on what seems to be AI generated scripts and full of misinformation and basic errors.
Maybe it will be in mass production by 2340.
What like Challenger or Abrams ?
Oh wait they have ZERO production - ROFL
@@maryginger4877 Those aren't a "concept" they actually exist.
@ The point I'm trying to make is maybe think about rebuilding our industries. Maybe think about building and not demolishing factories. I live in the UK, who on paper spends the same on defense as Russia... We can only field 100 tanks, and replace zero..
@@maryginger4877 The Russians wouldn't need all those replacements if they didn't bleed armor. So you're saying essentially, because we're not in a wartime footing, ultimately unbothered by a conflict that doesn't effect us, that Russia is somehow more capable, even though they are actively eating shit and dying? Lol, reach some more
Because they don't need new tanks opposite to Russia.@@maryginger4877
I could be wrong but the rear of the turret looks like a T-72 so the hatches might be there because the whole turret is just a modified version of the T-72 one
Why re-invent the wheel or turret in this case ?
@@maryginger4877 When your wheel is exploding into space all the time... probably wise to reinvent it
@@maryginger4877 Probably to accomodate all the sensors and cameras and whatnot to make the tank remotely operated.
Engineers possibly just used T-72 turret diagrams to conceptualize the tank, we have to consider this is just an early development that may very well not make it to prototypes let alone production at all.
Also, i just guessed you still need an enrtrance for maintainance and such. I mean I don't know if its deployment is supposed to be a one way trip. But if it's not, then you might want to check in on your apparatus once in a while. Or as red pointed out to load the autoloader.
@@firstname8637 If it only has a 3km control range, it probably needs a crew inside the tank to get it to and from the battlefield. Need at least a driver and commander so it doesn't run off the road, maybe a gunner if it might need it's gun in an emergency.
2:02 yeah, that's why they have FPV drones with cameras flying above assaulting infantry, tanks, to improve situational awareness.
Russian tankers already drive whit hatchs closed.
I don't know how this thing is gonna fix the problem of mines. Mines is what forces vehicles into columns behind the main minesweeper leader, mines is what turns assault into a slog and turns vehicles into target practice for drones.
It is even worse given that drones can now remotely and quickly mine remote locations on the path of assault.
And i am not even mentioning tank mines with delayed explosion which are the counter to mechanical minesweepers.
If u look at front of this tank
It has some bumper
Which is probably armored and gonna get dragged on ground
And its most likely heavily reinforced to withstand explosion
And if it can go up and down then it can be used as protection for body of tank
"Interesting concept".....it may as well be a chocolate unicorn at this point.
If the operator has to be within 3km of this, then he's a dead man in the current battlefield conditions. The controllers RF emission's will either be jammed or attract FPV's like flies to a road-kill.
I would say fibre optics is a better option for control, but if your controlling a 45 ton tank with limited visibility then there is high probability of reversing over your own control umbilical.
even worse. Now you have a frickin wire going back to your hiding spot
Tom and jerry Dynamite Trail aahhhh behavior @mynameisjeff6988
I have heard the unicorn reference before. I have actually used that reference.. But CHOCOLATE???
Relay drones.
Who made this concept? Students? Forum members?
War Thunder players
@@Gravity_studioss explaines the number of funny ammo disapearing boxes
moscow university students
01:39 sponsor ends
The best Russia can do is make something like the T-95 Black Eagle with the magazine in the rear of the turret and reactive armor.
>"Assault tank"
>Propsals for a 152mm gun
>made for urban fighting
welcome back assault guns?
These robo tanks need some degree of autonomous operation to be practical. Additionally, they need some way for nearby infantry to guide the tanks onto targets.
latter sounds reasonable. That tech was already in use when the British Swingfire was around.
War Thunder players be like : "Do you guys wants to hire us?"
Russia capitalising on its war thunder players
Literally everyone got thousands of hours of simulation experience, situational awareness, and ability to identify targets from few pixels with the worst graphics.
died 1939 born 2025 welcome back the remote control tank
Teletank* to be precise
Thermite dropping drones would have a field day melting those antenna off.
My exact thought was antenna/sensor suite vulnerability. Engineers will figure something out, I'm sure. The US has a similar project for drone IFVs. I imagine they're working thru similar concerns.
exactly. Russia is screwed. short term and the long run. They will always be a few steps behind.. probably due to inbreeding
@@wdavis6814 ifvs?
Probably not ever gonna be put in production
They are ifvs people will be inside them
Rc Tanks makes more sense
All good until the tank's worst enemy arrives: A $1000 drone
150 USD actually
The drone is cheap not munition tho@@Иван-ч8н1о
$12 can of paint will revolutionise modern warfare
Honestly, those are already hitting their limits. In the near future only wire and expensive AI drones will remain.
Going to be interesting to see all 4 of them when they deploy in 2057 😊
This has "Me messing around on the Porsche Car Configurator at 3 am" vibes. It's fun and exciting, but it's never gonna be real.
The best assault tank is 100mm short barrel tank. Also you don't need more than 3 - 5 km range since because inside a town you only get distances of a few meters, occasionally you might get a street, few hundred meters. etc. Also APS is important. get a good 20 - 30 mm too for close combat and you good to go...
It needs good all around armor
And for it to be able to take a hit anywhere
Soo this doesnt work becose of the antennas
Unless this design is going to utilize wire guidance like drones are now, the jamming will make it utterly useless.
I feel like the situational awareness problem could be easily solved by adding one or two aerial drones with it. May be that's the "infantry support" this tank will be operating with? Drones can act to relay signal to and from as well.
When a emitter becomes more powerfull its power requirments also get higher
And considering the antentas (dont look directional)
Drones cannot compete against directional antenna with a generator or maybe even 2 (thats a multikillowwatt transmitter)
How many ERAs you want on the tank? Designer: "да"
6:20 peak cyberpunk aesthetic
>drone tank reliant on cameras to work
Sweet, new AT unlock: Paint
Splatoon was right
Life imitates art.
Even Avatar (The 2009 movie) knew this. Sully beats the camera's off a dozer with a rock.
not a fan. the shorter gun is a good idea, but isn't it just as vulnerable to drones as every other tank. I was hoping to see a factory-built turtle with a fixed turret.
It's a base design, battlefield modifications from engineers are always available
@@josephkush1032 these are from the factory. it's no use modifying a brand new vehicle that effort is better spent on an older one.
@dhanu_4539 true but these would be more useful than funding being used for T-14 productions
@@josephkush1032 I don't think so, Russia is going to have to switch platforms eventually. There's nothing particularly wrong with the T-14 it's just too expensive to build but more importantly more expensive to start a new production line. Everyone is going for an automated turret design for their next tank design there's no need for Russia to throw away their lead. This isn't the only conflict they'll be involved in so it can't all be short term.
they gonna use the same chassis as that what mass production is set up for. Making new design means having to make new factories for design. So old design means 1-2 years till it can be massed out, new design means atleast 3-5 years. Mass only after 5 years+
1:58 "situational awareness is much worse"
are you click baiting? situational awareness will be exponentially greater since the same remote operator can rely on footage of multiple overhead drones for situational awareness, and the onboard cameras mainly for targeting.
If its an assault tank than its logical to assume it will be in the frontlines, where jammers are pretty much everywhere especially Ukrainian jammers in Kursk for example.
And the big elephant is that as a tank, it will need to work with infantry, and good situational awareness while doing so is basically must have( this tank is a cool idea it just needs way more all around cameras for that)
@@fennoman9241 then those same jammers would already be preventing the tank from operating here in the first place. so the argument is moot. and if the vehicle is to be controlled via a tether, so then can the overhead drones be as well.
@@RandomDeforge Not necessarily. Depends on what freq the tank uses and how its controlled, AI can be used. Wire just wont work, maybe in a sand desert where the tether wont snag. Drones already have issues with snagging.
@@fennoman9241no it does not
The freq can be guessed by the antennas and thenhave someone try all the freqs in combat if REALLY needed
Ai is how you get ukrainian units to train in fighting while in a carbord box like some low buget scifi film
I agree that wire wont work
Also the antennas dont look directional ,a directional jammer will always beat a omni directional one
Same with radio signals as a whole
Russia returning to tradition with a modern implementation of WWII era teletanks
technically the Sherman Jumbo and the T14 prototype heavy tank were classed as "assault tanks"
Lets not forget about the drone
They could use drones for targeting and scouting
Welcome back, Assualt Guns!
* The hatches are likely to access the interior during construction and maintenance.
* There needs to be no less situational awareness than in an ordinary tank, given that several camera feeds can be displayed at once to the operators.
Still waiting for the T-90M Arena system btw!😂😂
So its just a drawing of a T-72 with a few add ons?
T-72 is perfect tank it proved on battlefield
And they added critical modification need in modern warfare
Son it can be t-73
@@framed-r9git's good for it's purpose and also better than say the t64, but definitely not perfect. Is ammo racked too easily and has no usable reverse speed. I would even say it could use a bit more armor, it's turret at least, but for that it should get an entirely new, modern turret, which the Russians actually should really consider imo
@@framed-r9g It would be either T-72 with some letter designation or T-25. Real question is how would Uralvagonzavod name a new tank if they were to design it by 2034
Finally a new upload by RedEffect, thanks for the insight
new red effect vid🔥🔥
It just seems to be another one of those ideas that sounds good at first until one realize it's really not.
Next premium in War Thunder lol
Do an artillery video.
BOUNCE!
"war thunder, lol!"
"war thunder, lololol!"
my idea for remote tanks: dont even try to stop the RPG or tank rounds - just let them through with soft armor, so it leaves a hole, as it enters and leaves the tank.
when the tank is remote controlled with no humans inside, it might not matter if you have holes in the tank, it can still work.
The tank still houses vital systems that need to be protected like human operators.
That means that an anti tank rifle would be able to disable it by a few hits
CPUs and mbords dont react well to bullets
Where the Russian under impressed with the performance of the "Terminator" and is that why they are no longer seen on the battlefield?
not filmed does not mean they are not there....
@jhdsfalsjhdfjashdkhvjfldld8301 no it pretty much does. There hasnt been a single significant assault that hasnt been filmed by at least 3 different drones.
There were maybe a dozen at most deployed in Ukraine and it's not like there were many more to begin with. I'd be surprised if most of them weren't out of action one way or another.
@@LuisGpunkt Source: The Ghost of Kiev.
Not everything is constantly on camera.
Its kind of challenging to film every single battle encounter, especially in a heated battle (other than drones ofcourse).
Not sure you can have drones in the sky 24\7 but i am no expert.
I mean the fact that the remote range is 3km doesn't mean that the operator has to be within that range. If you can deal with an extra ~50-100ms of latency they could be anywhere within Russia where there is an internet connection. The only problem you have to solve is creating a bridge between the internet and the control station, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
RC-Tanks, it was just a matter of time. Skilled personal is the most expensive thing a militiary can own.
Not for russians tho 😅
I mean, yeah, experience is important but they are more likely to run out of tanks than of people to put inside these tanks
@@TimothyZanykrussias main advantige in war is mostly that they have more man power
Now the ussr fell , so that is already GREATLY reduced
But they also cannot manifacture to the level needed (again ussr fell) to stay a global power, their economy 2 times smaller then germany while haveing less then 2 times more people.They cannot maintain a big army , an good airforce and a nuclear stockpile with their economy (they probably cant have more then 1)
Another mystery tank to be rarely seen, and now the bloggers will be arguing what battery size this tank has lol
3:21 is that a stuka in the background?
Probably the lastest game changing wunder weapon sent to Ukraine by NATO
At 3:35 you can see a truck with a massive TV on it.
Meaning this is probably some sort of arms expo for civilians.
Looks like random scrap, probably an UAV of sorts
At this point, tanks like this one and Armata series are just like wunderwaffe projects.
so, we are looking at a 21st century breaktrough tank?
Meanwhile on the front, russians using Buchanka trucks and Ladas are like WTF?
This seems to combine drawbacks of old T 72 design with drawback of remote control without many benefits aside from the cheapness. Though Russian T 72s are getting more expensive and rare by every passing day.
To be fair
Every one of russia tanks that is semi modern is kinda disapearing
Exept the t90ms from time to time when they make some
Some questionable things:
1. Jammers + remote control doesnt work together.
2. The idea itself is not bad, but being more blind than a crewed vehicle, which are already blind enough can cause a lot of problems.
3. 3 km is decent, but such signals can be tracked and well within drone range, operating this thing for extended periods of time is literally a suicede for the operators. Thats why drone operators usually take as short time as possible with a single mission, then they relocate.
4. Kinda an expensive thing for a country barely having access to microchips.
5. Can be jammed like drones.
Anyway the concept is good, we'll see if it ever gets deployed or just remains an idea.
Russians suddenly caring about crew safety 😂
You know it's bs.
I think you might have forgotten to account for the possibility of the tank being controlled via fiberoptic wires
Fiber optic works ok for flying drones, but for ground vehicles they are probably too prone to snagging.
@@emeryhenry1849 Yea, aint no way you are using a fiber optic on a vehicle outside some pure sand desert, tho there heat is an issue.
Even drones have snagging issues in Ukraine rn.
Imagine those things get caught on a branch. Instantly disabled
The hatches could very well just be the idea to drive the tank around manned, and when going into combat the crew dismounts and drives the tank further unmanned. This would allow the operators to stay mobile and self-propelling, and mount and dismount in the field.
Died in 1950s born in 2025
Welcome back, heavy tank
Screw it, make a casemate assault gun based on the T-72 like they did with the SU-85/ISU-152. (T-34/IS chassis) Only need to worry about the direction of one item rather than hull and turret, weight saved means more armor/spaced protection on top from drones.
another "forever" prototype that will never see major production.
Two years ago, I said that tanks had two paths to evolve. One was to turn into massive vehicles with indirect fire capability and lots of point defence systems, and the other would be the robotization of older models to make expendable drones.
How long until we see the new tank coming with 60-degree gun elevation, onboard radar and the angry r2d2?
One fpv away from being just metal.
Για πες μας Χρήστο, ποια τανκς θα επιβίωναν εναντίον ενός fpv drone???
@giorgosmakris178 κανένα
Which is the same thing that can be said about any Western tank, so.... your point?
Welcome back KV2
Will be interesting to see Russia build 10 of these and claim it is in service like the T-14 Armata.
You are on a wrong channel my dude...here we talk facts, not nafo propaganda...please make your way back to lazer pigs channel where you belong :)
T-14 was never said to have entered service. It was a technology demonstrator. Like the 2s38 for instance. like the challenger 3, abrams X or the ascalon system. It's about showing what is possible. Nothing more.
@revan22 The CEO of rostek said it was in serial production. That doesn't sound like a technology demonstrator.
@revan22 Challenger 3 is entering service and is currently in trials of utter goober.
The armata is in service , it just hasn't been deployed to combat
There's like 50 of the things rolling around, which is more tanks than some NATO countries have to begin with
The “3 km range” would be from the repeater, so it doesn’t really matter.
“One shot and the antennas are gone” doesn’t really work that way either - you can use hidden antennas with worse performance (but with repeater, again, it doesn’t really matter).
And drones with optic fibre already fly for 10 km and more - which could be damaged too - but also a tank is more expensive then a 500$ drone, so I’d place several of the ‘connection systems’ at the same time.
The biggest problem I see is it’s operational mobility: not every war from now on would be a trench war.
But even then it’s solved by placing the operators in the IFV, and trailing it from beyond visual range.
But the dumb short barrel “to not hit the trees” and the tractor spoon instead of the mine prowl is giving me the vibe of another media blueprint that will never see mass production.
Although love the idea itself: assaulting and breaching enemy lines is one of the most complex and demanding tasks out there, so preserving the crew and letting them gain the experience of dozens of battles seems like a good enough investment to me by itself.
Range of only 3km may indicate a fiber cable being in use to control the tank, possibly in tandem with wireless option since obviously cable can be cut by enemy.
As for lack of cameras ect, tank crew may come with own recon drone to solve this.
Great video anyhow as usual.
They’ll probably have a squad of fpv operators near them relaying info or have a whole gaming setup and seeing what the drones see
Russia is flying drones with 10km of cable, and increasing it to 20km according to themselves.
So 3km is weirdly low
@notaseriousbeaver Issue is with snagging, its already an issue with drones. Just think about this one, any kind of rubble or something and wire goes bye bye.
3km is RE opinion. and fiber optics drones are flying even 15 km
Welcome back, Jumbo
0:18 russia cares about it’s soldiers?? Where’s russia and what have you done with it??
Edit: It seems I’ve managed to annoy some people of a certain political view and frankly I don’t care, comment at me all you want I have better things to be doing.
With all due respect, you know nothong of the Russian armed forces nor how they operate if that's how you think
@@gregoryfilin8040 His name is "NATO enthusiast" so I wouldn't expect him to have a very positive view of Russia.
@@gregoryfilin8040 the 23,000-ish casualties (KIA/injured) in Ukraine would disagree.
@@gregoryfilin8040 The fact that their armor is the literal antithesis of Western armor, where the crew surviving is paramount, proves his point.
@@NATOenthusiast whose low number is that?
The real number is roughly 235K KIA 950K WIA in Ukraine, with roughly 185K KIA 785K WIA for Russia. Don't know what strange universe you live in, but go on.
No drone protections? I was expecting their answer for the current meta.
Hell yeah a RED video, finally
Took you long enough
I think that cylinder on top the turret could be a LIDAR module for maybe semi autonomous navigation?
They're actually getting really good at designing fascinating tanks they'll never deploy.
They have been doing that since the 60s
hatches are likely for maintenance, maintenance would be hard if the vehicle was sealed
They think they can afford it 💀💀💀💀
Maybe that's just to steal some money on production
@@TimothyZanyk why steal on makeing a tank when you can steal in designing a tank?
This Channel Is What Matsimus Thinks He Is😂😂😂
That Moment When TH-camrs Actually Put In Effort😅
Love You Red❤
Why tf Russia keeps the T72 in any form, even as a basis of a concept? That chassis is holding them back even more than the fall of the USSR
Can they produce anything else? (In MBT bullpark)
It doesn't. It is possibly the most successful and adaptable tank concept in armoured warfare history. Russia seeks to convert many T72 chassis into useful kit at minimal cost. Teminators are part of this program and an assault tank, able to take two or three hits while spearheading penetration in a heavily defended sector is worth a tryout.
@@andersonarmstrong2650 Pretty much all of the T-72 based wunderwaffe like BMPT-72 have failed in actual combat, been more waste than use.
T-72 just isnt a good enough platform for modern warfare, its badly armoured for modern standard and its mobility is just bad.
@fennoman9241 'Pretty much' pure projection on your part..Weren't your NATO toys deemed 'gamechangers' until introduction into a real conflict?!
@@fennoman9241 That juicy Abrams 38mm glacis plate must be the source of your data concerning T72B3 base armour, bro..
War is terrible and all, but it's fascinating to see how the involved parties are innovating and dealing with new challenges.
Javelin enters the chat
The limited range is probably because it is wire guided not radio.
armada was designed to be full remote
I love tanks but I don’t support war,is this normal,I’m kinda confused
It is alright, you like the engineering behind it, not its actual use ? And nobody sane trully support war.
@@SAarumDoK yep
Noone likes war
Looking it at anyway
Even wanting russia to be destroyed
It could be done by getting nato more countrys ,getting nato economys stronger, while leaveing to become like north korea ,if it trys to become as stronger as its boardering countrys then it bankrupts its self, if it doesnt try that then its military will only become older by the year (ending in being like the pz4s used against israel, outdated in every way)
Who could've thoutht that SW AAT could be better unit that whatever a real army wants to field.
Can't wait for them to build only 10 models in the next decade.
Return of the casemate tank... The russians really will dig up the old ww2 tanks now
It's not a casemate tank... It has a normal turret
@jnievele Yes, I meant to imply a trend of the design back to casemates
100% it will be crew operated, battlefield communications are not nearly reliable enough to risk a tank.
A new upload, finally you bum
We have already seen that it is necessary to have a tank like this because the entire front is covered with dragon teeth as well as destroyed vehicles, so obviously something like this is needed to make a passage for other tanks, I also think that there are many more radio jammers on it, as well as various electrical equipment for jamming drones, only with higher power, and this is something that the army was obviously looking for, and as for the cannon, it is there purely to make it possible. He could defend himself if he needed to, but I don't think that's his main purpose.
No to Naziukropnato...♥️🇷🇺👍
He is back Finally
hey red did you see the tank on tank battle that took place recently
They will finish the blueprints by 2029, find funds for a first prototype by 2047, build that prototype by 2057, find fuel and ammo by 2059, recruit a crew by 2063, train that crew by 2068, finish testing the prototype by 2073, find money for a factory by 2084, build a factory by 30001 and roll off a first preproduction model by 3010...
I mean the idea is solid imo, even if here it seem like its done on the cheap. But give a concept like that proper drone integration for increased awareness, organic ability to peak over terain and maybe even guide precision munitions as well as signal amplification and it would be some good stuff i think