Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/wg2024 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, premium accounts and more! To play War Thunder for FREE on mobile: mwt.game/warographics
THE ABSOLUTE IRONY of WAR THUNDER sponsoring this video is absolutely mindboggling! A Russian made game about, amongst others, Russian tanks. And the CEO of War thunder was outspoken pro invasion and pro Putin... But hey man! Someone's gotta pay the bills!
It really makes me think of the "T-72s" we had at the NTC in the 80s-90s.(Sheridans with wood and fiberglass) It looks like a fake turret on a hull...like they couldnt get anything to work even half the time except the hull.
@@jefferydraper4019 As I recall the "Krasnovians" built their vehicles by hand as well, much like 18:40... except the NTC's objective wasn't trying to hoodwink ex-Soviet client states into forking over bucket-loads of Western currencies! Of course, I've always been amused that 'Nam vintage M551 and M113 continue to perform more reliably than the "Bestest Tahnk EVAH!!" T-14.
@@fyrchmyrddin1937 It looks like the best use of Sheridan was as a T-72. Sad it too the army 60 years to finally put a replacement in production Especially since Cadillac-Gage Textron had the Stingray all along to replace it. Ahhh...the "Must spend all the money possible, instead of wisely" mentality of our DOD. It also took them decades to get back to a vehicle like V-100 instead of Hummers for higher threat area LAVs.
Nah, the T-14 is quite operational. It just won’t be used in conventional battles like the ones going around now. I suspect that the Russians are basically adding upgrades and so on.
Two old men in Odessa talking about the war: -What's the news? -Have you not heard? There is a war! -who is fighting? -Russia says it is at war with NATO. -How's is it going? -100,000 Russians are dead, they have lost thousands of tanks, used up most of their missiles, and their economy is collapsing. -and NATO? -NATO hasn't shown up yet.
@@domtweed7323 From the T-14 Wikipedia page: "In March 2024, the CEO of Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, finally confirmed that the tank has never been deployed in Ukraine for being too expensive and the T-90 being a more efficient option.[61]" So it looks doubtful if it will be mass produced if they can build more T-90s for half the price.
@@jasoncurtis99 No he is not, he is borderline pseudohistorian, videos full of mistakes and bias etc. For example chieftain showcased some of that, as a part of that RedEffect vs LazerPig debacle.
No one heard of their hypersonic intermediate ballistic missiles until a fortnight ago. The best advice for Russian technology is to never underestimate it.
This really is like when you ask a friend where his girlfriend / boyfriend is and he says that she / he lives out of town? "Oh, the tank is coming, it's just in a different war, but it'll be here!"
"We are in day 1007 of my three week invasion of Ukraine, we have not deployed our amazing T-14 Armata tank because it would be unfair to the Ukrainians to face our awesomness - I remain the master strategist" Said Darth Putin as he looked in the mirror :)
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation. However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex: -The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered. -The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors. -The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains. -The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission. -The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops. These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
"We are very lucky that they are so ducking stupid." This quote sums it up pretty well. Russia really does design comparably good military hardware, it's just that their mismanagement and corruption at every civilian and military level prevents them from every fielding that stuff in high enough numbers, training enough crews and sustaining that deployment over the life cycle of everything from tanks, aircraft to ships. If they even had the organizational efficiency and funding of even France, the EU would be cooked, but instead they will forever be trapped in a perpetual state of being too far away from being an Avengers level threat but barely powerful enough not to be a complete pushover.
There is also the BIG issue of Braindrain. The term associated with the mass migration of intelligent educated individuals moving elsewhere to find a better life. Living in Russia is hard. The average rent of an apartment in Moscow is like 70% of a military pay check. The chances of you having an indoor flushing toilet decreases the further from Moscow you go within Russia. So it's no surprise that in the early 2000s a huge proportion of Russia's engineers left for the west leaving Russia undereducated. Hence the T-14 was built with as many off the shelf components and an existing oil pumping engine instead of designing one that was fit for purpose. A lot of the electronic systems are outdated and Russia relies on western imports to have any advanced electronics. Something they no longer have access to.
And it's also really sad situation for the common soldier, because they also get fed the information that they have the greatest equipment of all time, and they believe it. This overconfidence leads to these ridiculous casualty numbers in ukraine.
@@frederiklohr9504 It's no wonder that troops on the front lines of Russia are refusing to use some equipment that they are provided with. Things like the ERA blocks on tanks being filled with rubber or that combat body armour that can't stop a 9mm.
@@amandarhodes4072 Yes. The normal soldier in russia is just cannon fodder. I just hope that the russian will one day be tired of this treatment. All of these young boys have loved ones, many of them families with children. And they die for putins desire for power...
For example the Mig 25 Foxbat, Edit: Though this is a bad example as that was the West Hitting the panic button as they thought the Soviets had been stealing FX Designs. What drove fear of the foxbat was fear or espionage.
@@spartan2748 you realize that the USSR did not create propaganda about the MiG-25. It was the CiA specialists who assumed that it was a Soviet superfighter. The Russians designed it from the very beginning as an interceptor, and in this role it performed rather well.
@@spartan2748 It's like someone showed you a hammer. You immediately assumed that it was used to screw in light bulbs and that he must be great at it. In the corner, you designed an even better machine for screwing in light bulbs. And at the end you were laughing that the hammer couldn't handle light bulbs. As if of course it couldn't handle light bulbs, it was designed to drive nails, of course it wasn't the hammer's fault, you were an idiot who thought that the purpose of a hammer was to screw in light bulbs.
Funny thing about the new rissuan kenetic missile, how long, if america had to, would it take for the air force to swap out loads on our soon to be redundent minutemen missiles to do the same thing, only with many more projectiles, hitting twice as hard....
I was surprised he didn't mention it! It literally broke down and had to be towed away. Russia admitted it before backpedalling and saying that actually the tank didn't break, our military is just so poorly trained that the emergency brake was on midway through the parade 😂
@@charlemagne111027 lol I thought they tried passing a story that it was a “demonstration” of how to tow a failed vehicle… during a parade… in front of Putin himself 😂
Good lord how many times does this myth need be dispelled. The crew, operating a new vehicle they probably had only hours of time in, made a big dumb and put the handbrake on, it didn’t “break down” like they say it did. However even if it had, it wouldn’t be worth caring about as a tank breaking down is far from an uncommon occurrence.
I also have a very real tank. It's hull is that of Battleship Yamato, just like... bigger, it's engine is based on the Glocke "ufo" thingy, and it's main gun a flippen volcano firing laser guided treaties of Brest-Litovsk.
The turret armor is an interesting compromise. Seems like an IFV could accomplish a mission kill, even if it can't get a mobility kill. A tank with no functioning turret or weapons isn't a great tank.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus A manned turret is just as vulnerable to optics being knocked out as an unmanned turret. Which just isn't very likely in either case.
@@PrivateMemo The difference is that a manned turret still has direct optical backup., something that an unmanned turret does not have due to its core design which rely entirely on cameras.
Ad: "Play Warthunder if you want an authentic military experience!" Player: "I'm going to post these top secret technical documents to prove that the IRL version of this weapon should be much more effective in game than currently depicted, this winning me the online argument about whether or not my getting pwnd in the last match was a skill issue" Ad: "An incredibly authentic experience!"
@@nikolaideianov5092 "If I had a nickel for every time somebody leaked to secret documents on a War Thunder message board I'd have less than a dollar, but still it's weird that it's happened so frequently"
@@nikolaideianov5092 I really hope that on some auspicious date the US Air Force officially posts the "top secret" technical documents on a newly out of date decommissioned cold war aircraft like the A-10 of F-16 to the WarThunder forums as a power move. "Oh yeah, copy what we perfected 50 years ago. See how well you do without the training budget and tactical flexibility of a US Air Force cadet"
14:55 "(the Maus) is cracking fun to play with on War Thunder" I'm now convinced you've never touched this game. Driving the Maus like driving a barn powered by a 3 cylinder engine, and the armor is meaningless against 80% of the rounds people use at that battle rating. Not to mention you're so huge, a blind bomber in low earth orbit stands a fair chance of hitting you directly
When tanks are now under threat from $500 drones, and you can build 10 T90’s for the price/time of 1 T14 with troops already trained on the T90 platform, then its a no brainer.
The M1 Abrams has its top speed is set by a governor, it has more than enough power to literally go faster than the track's can handle without being flung off. I highly doubt the T-90 can actually go 80-90 kilomete4rs per hour for any extended time even over smooth ground, and probably more like 35-40 over open country.
@@bandit5875 Abrams tanks are fitted with a speed governor that limits their top speed. A crewman and a few hours with a wrench removes that limitation, then it can hit up to 70.
Saw it on display in Russia in 2018: The entire corner of the turret was made out of welds! Like they cut the Armour in 90 degrees instead of having the plates meeting up.
I spent ten years in tanks and I'm here to tell you, the T-14 was never a real project. The initial photo's of the vehicle taken by Live Leak showed the turret armor was drywall held on with twists of wire. The vehicle has never been seen with its turret traversed over its sides, meaning that the turret traverse mechanism was probably never hooked up. Experimentation with unmanned turrets goes back to the 1980's, where it was determined to be unfeasible, and the idea of a turret containing the tank's most vital systems (gun trunnions, recoil mechanism, gun breach, elevation and traverse systems, autoloader, FCS and associated sensors), being protected by 40mm of armor is insane. The T-14 was a publicity stunt, with what were probably old experimental turrets being dropped onto new hulls to give the illusion of a program.
@@Dragon-Believer That is an IF on top of an IF. The truth is they dragged a bunch of mismatched parts out of storage and got a ton of free propaganda for it.
Hearing that it was an uncrewed turret that can load ATGMs instantly made me raise an eyebrow. That autoloader must be insanely complex (if it even exists), & then you have to ask if the missiles are part of the regular loadout then exactly how many shells do they have ready loaded? & then if there are problems or you need to restock the autoloader do you have to disengage & exit the tank to access the turret? (Just make Strv 103s again world, the world yearns for S-Tanks 😩)
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Fantastic, so at some point they hooked up the traverse mechanism on one of them. That doesn't change the fact that the armor is drywall, the tank hasn't gone into production 9 years after its roll out, and the idea was moronic from day 1. For you War Thunder Generals, the top of the turret is where a lot of works gets done. You can see 360 degrees around the vehicle, turning at a moment's notice. You can HEAR the battlefield and the approach of other vehicles. You can communicate wirelessly with other tank commanders and infantry through an ancient technology known as "voice." With a crew of 4, or even 3, crew you can maintain and recover your own vehicle. You can put a person out on local security or have a casualty and still function. A tank isn't only a combat vehicle, its a massively large, massively heavy, massively complex one. Two guys playing video games in the hull aren't going to get it done.
I also wanna add this: it doesn’t sound like it’d be very good in Ukraine anyway. You mentioned it lacks turret armor: that being the case, it stands to reason that those things might pop like zits if a spicy DJI hits said turret. It might not kill the crew, but a tank is pretty useless on an active battlefield with a turret that’s been soup-canned
Everything Russia states mostly means 1000% increased number or completely opposite, Thus battlefield integration probably means everybody can see it and themselves, cannot. 1000mm penetration with "vacuum" shell probably means 100mm and unrealistic conditions like clear of sight, no wind and target is immobile and angled 90 degrees.
The final conclusion is at least partly what I had assumed. No assembly line, no access to parts and the examples we did see were one off machines. I rather doubt that we'll ever see one in action
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation. However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex: -The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered. -The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors. -The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains. -The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission. -The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops. These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
You won't see it on the frontline because it's not in active service, it's still being developed, it's stupid to even make this video, it's like asking why we don't see the Abrams X being deployed.
Yeah it would make it less interesting to buy. But at the same time, it's the best way to review the tank and improve on it, so that it is actually interesting (again) to buy. I doubt many people think it is currently a superstar anyways.
We may be laughing now but when the Brics country's introduce the gold backed currency putting the dollar in deep trouble! This is the thing that turns our countries upside down. I for one is looking to this as something leading to a very dark time.
They may only have a few Armatas however it's there nuclear weapons that block the US, Being apart of the Brics group means Russia has all the trading partners it needs with gold backed currency, Russia and the Brics country's may take control of this world
Pro Tips for those wanting to do Russian military cosplay: Airsoft gear off of aliexpress is equal in quality to Russian combat kit Don’t be afraid to use WWI and WWII era weapons if you don’t have a modern AK variant on hand, as that is authentic to Russian logistics If you want to dress up your truck to look like a T-14, don’t be afraid to use cardboard, as most of the T-14s we’ve seen are likely T-72s with cardboard body kits
If you wantbto do Russian cosplay just buy Russian gear. The actual Russian army had to get Aliexpress gear because they sold so much gear to Western airsofters.
1:43 this is the most Soviet test of armor I have ever seen. “How we test tank, comrade?” “Drive it off ramp really fast into water” “What will that test, comrade?” “How cool it looks flying into water for Stalin, dah!”
In russia, tanks fly, planes become bombs and ships get promoted to submarines! The flying BT-5 became the insparation for every modern russian tank, thats why they throw their turret so high! russians are master strategists.
the fact that the tank itself isnt even a Russian design.. America gave them the plans and all of their leftovers since they figured the suspension design was not what They needed, so they donated them to Russia lol
They might not have as much capability as they claim, but a lot of Ukrainian’s have died as a result of their invasion, so cut the propaganda and view them as the threat that they are.
@@herbieoliver2682well the only outcome to this is inevitable it’s just a matter of time imo social media really needs to take a step back all I see now is channels like this making money off what’s going off, Fuelling both sides If Ukraine actually do get the upper hand, PUTIN (not Russia as a whole) will make sure he’s safe and unleash something that will put us all in the dark ages or try yes the west will have catastrophic destruction and devastation but what happens to us will be the 10 fold to Russia All because the one man wants to be the school yard top dog 1939/1945 springs to mind
@@herbieoliver2682They have died at a multiplicative rate faster than that of Ukrainian forces and have expended billions more than NATO. They are a threat in the same way that the USSR was a threat to Finland. Edit: Not only was the threat minimal, but the fallout from Russia being seen so poorly convinced Hitler to invade and cost him the entire war. 😊
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation. However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex: -The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered. -The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors. -The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains. -The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission. -The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops. These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
@@sergiom9958 Let's get one thing straight, the T-14 is absolutely not a a generational advancement in tank design. Everything that the T-14 supposedly incorporates is stuff that their western counterparts, i.e. Abrams and Challenger, has had as standard since the early 2000's. Also, given Russia's lack of capabilities in developing truly advanced tech it is highly likely that every bit of tech incorporated into the Amata is at least a couple generations behind anything that the west can field. Also considering that Russia is a very poor nation, and the fact that high tech costs about the same worldwide, regardless of where you reside, it is also highly unlikely that Russia can even procure the tech in viable quantities.
@ you are wrong in all senses. The T14 is the new generation regardless of the origin of some of the concepts it incorporates. For example, the Abrams marked a new generation of MBT although some of the core advances were not US (like choban and thermal imaging) or not even the first one to use them (Choban or the L7 gun is a British invention or the later 120mm is a German one). The totally unmanned MBT turret with a protected capsule for the crew (and toilet) is a Russian invention. The APS is a Soviet invention. Others maybe not but that also applies to others like the M1 tank; for ex the M1 was not the 1st to use a turbine but is was the Swedish Strvd 103. Or another one like the composite armour invented and fully implemented first by the Soviet Union. Your statement that Russian systems are “several generations behind the west” only shows your total ignorance. Systems like the S300-S400-S500 or subs or planes like the SU57 or MBTs guns or missiles or ATGM etc (and many others just to name a few) are top line products that have no problem facing any other in their category. Its obviously true that Russia fell behind in some areas like thermals and microchips; but you forget that no country on earth is self sufficient in their Defence needs. The US uses the Israeli Trophy, a French radar in their corvettes, the German L44, will have Italian made ships, etc. and I could go on with many examples in many countries. Your statement that Russia can’t develop highly advanced and new “tech” is false and ridiculous. Your statement that Russia is “a very poor nation” is even more ridiculous; Russia is 1st world country you like it or not. Because I Salk remember you that the line between 1st and 3rd world is marked by (for ex) the UN and not your very ignorant and biased vision. So don’t embarrass yourself with such a comment.
To the writer of this: well done. Well written, seemingly well researched and a great job of providing Simon with quality copy. To Simon: Well read. You seemed like you knew every bit of this and didn't need to read anything to provide us with that information. Excellent presentation.
There are less than half a dozen x shaped engines that have ever been put into full production, and one of those was later replaced by v type engines due to reliability issues. And a different one was also discontinued for unreliability. If GM and Rolls-Royce couldn't hammer out reliability issues with an x shaped design, I don't find it hard to believe that it is a fundamentally bad design.
No way to tell if its good or bad , we haven't seen it in action yet, all information about it more or less is gathered by independent media and "youtubers" so even the stats we have about it is suspect. And yes parade thing does demonstrate that the crews in 2015 not familiar with the vehicle or were poorly trained. Dont get me wrong it might be terrible , But it also might be very good , There is just no way to know till until we have actual statistics about it that are 100% verified or better yet actual combat performance.
@@ailinofaolin8897it’s been years and Russia still hasn’t used a single one. They either don’t exist or are still not usable. Knowing Russias ineptitude it’s a combination of both reasons. Go suck Ivan’s boot somewhere else bot
Back in 1980 I was involved in the US Army’ Humvee acquisition program. Besides all the usual automotive suspects (General Motors, Chrysler et al) prototypes and pre-production vehicles Lamborghini delivered several Cheetahs and LM-001, and a year later the LM-002. Troops loved the Lambos as they were gas powered and way too fast for military use. Lambo made diesels but they were for tractors and agricultural equipment. Each Lambo was hand built so there were difference even among the small batch we received. Nobody could say how fast Lambo could build a production line and get it going, if at all.
Kudos to Simon. His presentation of this video makes it appear that he actually is a SME on the information. His inflections and presentation make it seem like he really knows the information. He is a great presenter of prepared information and should be commended.
Got to admit who works on Warfronts research has been doing amazing work. Normally channels like this not focused on specific armoured vehicles get things wrong. the Merkava video was decent. though you could of talked about how it was made and how crew survivability was paramount hence the engine in the front despite its downsides
@@divinesan7786 Unsure about NATO, however, the US and UK are combat proven and perhaps the most competent forces on Earth. Russia has never been effective in waging war and this is no exception.
@@GunnyO326 that makes no sense, US and UK were both fighting in wars with lesser enemies and majority of them in recent years are against insurgents. Can’t say US do any better when they failed to suppress Taliban and left tons of tech for them. And right now Russia is doing well on the field so saying “never been” is false
If there are only a small number of T-14s built at the start of the conflict, it makes sense for them not to be fielded - as there wouldn't be enough to equip a formation and there would likely be very limited spare parts for repair and maintenance. Likewise, the reason to not start building more after conflict started is down to logistics. The workforce experience / knowledge base and tooling for older designs would probably be more readily available; and thus easier and quicker to set up and expand. A similar situation arose in the UK during WWI, where they were in the process of replacing the old Webley revolver with a semi-automatic but abandoned that idea and retained the revolver since that was the one that they could manufacture at scale quickly.
The problem it’s that it’s believed that all of the T-14s produced are different variations over the years as they tried to fix the problems. None of them are in a finalized state. None are believed to be serialized, meaning in production status. Even if they wanted to, putting any of them in the field against a modern army would result in problems. In Syria, they had a small number appearing here and there basically out of range of the rebels who had no means to attack them. Russia requires large numbers of sales of their weapons systems to other states to defray the R&D and manufacturing costs. If their latest systems, such as the SU-57 and the T-14 are lost in the war, other countries will be reluctant to purchase them, making them too expensive for Russia to buy for themselves. They’ve already seen that happen Tom sales of their latest helicopter. As they were shot down in Ukraine, China, India, Turkey and others cancelled their orders.
It's a nice parade princess, when it can even move under its own power, but once you look closer, you get comedic values like their new "stealth" jet being put together with sunk Phillips screws...
"We know the best part of bugger all about this..." This had to be the most quintessentially British phrase I've heard Simon say. And he himself is already quintessentially British to begin with. Yes, I did choke on my tea is amusement.
M-14 like many other post Soviet projects is an example of what happens to your project when you run out of money for Research and development as well as running out of international clients and collaborations That ofc doesn't means that is impossible to see some of it's technology being applied to already existing platforms in a form of upgrade kits or directly from the factory
the most dangerous 'weapon' of the su57 is the bolts that fall out of the fuselage while it's in the air those things can pick up some speed as they fall... if it's high enough
The Su57 and the Armata are in a very similar situation and suffer the same problems. In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation. However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex: -The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered. -The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors. -The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains. -The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission. -The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops. These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
Armor pen is in solid steel mm. So when a weapon claim to pen 1000 mm, or 1 meter, it is only in context of regular steel. Not actual modern armor composition, which obviously is not one meter thick because that would be too heavy. Does not mean all weapons will pen the thickness of armor even if the armor is less in mm thick. Just for reference the old Eryx anti tank missile system also has 1000 mm tandem shape charge pen.
It's been known for years that the T14 armata only had a few prototypes made as it is riddle with problems starting with it's engine. It has been mostly abandoned for a modernized T90. So there are no T14 armata in Ukraine cuz the model has never been battle ready. Almost all the fancy stuff you mention doesn't work.
Needs western components as well which they probably can get but at prices that don't justify using them on a non battlefield proven piece of hardware.
@@invadegreece9281 July 2018: ''Russia will not mass-produce its new third-generation T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) as it is too costly'', Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov told Russian media. August 2023.Russia report a few T14 were deployed far from front lines for testing and removed them shortly after. March 4th 2024:''The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine'' August 20th 2024: ''The T-14's future is uncertain, with the possibility that ongoing problems and high costs may lead to its abandonment or a complete redesign.''
Welcome to the Club of 1933. Back then "the guys" with the nice flag with the funny cross inside did the same. It's starts with dehumanizing other humans and ends with Chambers full of Pesticide
Agreed. Despite the abhorrent actions that the Russian state is currently engaged in, and the frustrating refusal of the russian state to change, dehumanising other people only ever ends the same way. @@TheGesox
@@grantjohnstone9787 Yet they will keep doing it, because in their mind they are superior. It make you wonder why so many men lost their life during the last world war.
Fastest tank in production would be the leopard 2: with engine regulators removed and pushing it towards 2000hp, a Leopard 2 achieved over 100kph in trials on a closed part of the Autobahn. Downsides: steering is nearly impossible. And the driver might not hear the command to stop or slow down, because noise levels rise way above that of a starting jet engine...
They also have their super stealth fighter, the SU-57, that's apparently the best in the world. That fighter is also not to be seen anywhere in Ukraine. Wonder why.... :-D
Isn't that what super stealthy mean, the ability to be invisible both to electronic detection or naked eyeball, that might be the reason it hasn't been seen. The West didn't see Oreshnik coming either, I wonder why.
As long as there's a perfectly good, smoothly functioning assembly line for the T-90, there's not much point investing in the T-14 assembly line. As far as I can tell, there's an experimental assembly line for the T-14 in existence, but it's far from perfect, it's not completely standardised and there's a very limited supply of T-14 parts, which means the output is probably around one tank a month. With an output like that, there probably aren't more than a hundred T-14s in service and they're probably all preproduction versions, used for testing and training. In all likelihood, tests have revealed some problems, which need to be sorted out before mass production can be started. The component shortage caused by the war probably prevents them from manufacturing more T-14s in the near future, so you won't be seeing a lot of these in the field. When NATO starts WW3 for real, all available tanks will probably be sent to the front, though, so that's when you may see those preproduction tanks actually doing something.
14:46 not this. it is NOT based on the Porsche engine. the only common things they share is the layout. it's likey saying a modern V4 engine is based on a 100 year old engine because both are V4. people should stop citing lazerpig and his BS. also the Porsche engine was NOT designed for the Maus, it was designed for a Tiger
Well in addition to other factors it could also be that as long as they only have 20 of them, the logistical tail to field them in combat isn’t worth it.
Objectively looking at the question, the answer is really simple. It is shelfed because Russia is fighting a war. They have/had masses of T-70/80/90 tanks and have running production lines for T-90's and 80's. These also happen to be much cheaper to build than a completely new platform with teething problems. Lastly the T-14 offers nothing much on the modern battlefield compared to the tanks Russia is modernizing/building for less money.Because the armata cant deal with drones just as any other russian or western tank and will explode when driven onto a mine just like any other. Russia is not 1944-45 Germany wasting resources on wunderwaffe while fighting a war..
Just before this video I watched one saying how much better Germany would do if they build Panthers (yeah yeah I know they sucked at the start but not later on) instead of Tigers and King Tigers.
They won't deploy the T14 because A: Has not passed military trials or entered official service. B: What's the point if the tank is still 100% vulnerable to drones?
C: They would burn threw their small stockpile in a few weeks D: It could fall into western hands, and then it would be analyzed by people that don't have an interest in hyping it up.
One thing you failed to mention in this video is that on forums of the sponsored game War Thunder you can often find military leaks so it is probably very good place to find out more info about T14.
It is the best tank from certain perspectives, no other tank has the same level of stealthiness! Plus as was shown in their parade it’s got a fabulous hand brake sooo good it takes a second tank thingy to make it move!
Toward the end, you touched upon the likely reason Russia has not risked its dozen or so T-14s. Russia wants to export the T-14 and videos/images of wrecked T-14s will not help sales.
true. Imagine this tank falls into western hands and they study it and find out that it's nowhere near as good as russia says. But that actually doesn't matter, because nobody wants them anyway.
I think that it hasn't been deployed in Ukraine because it's not designed to handle the kind of threat environment it would see now. Shoulder fired munitions and ATGMs are one thing but small near undetectable drones are another. The vast majority of Russia's tank losses are due to drones not in tank vs tank engagements. The loss of T-14s in an environment it's not capable of fighting in would be yet another colossal blow to the Russian arms export industry and would kill whatever little chance remains of the T-14 being accepted for export, tainting future designs too. Probably the same reason why the few Su-57s are only being deployed well within Russian airspace to fire standoff missiles at Ukrainian jets.
I remember when they rolled out the "Terminators". It resulted in then being swarmed by drones. Two lost, along with the recovery vehicles sent out after them.
Actually the vast majority of Russian tank losses are from mines and artillery. Drones make up a small proportion and are more commonly used to finish off armour that's already been abandoned.
Yes, Russia has spent a year barely advancing 50 km, while expending thousands of men. Actually look at a map at the beginning of this year and now with the territories held. Those are horrendous losses for minimal gain.
@@divinesan7786 You'll have to enlighten me... Where and when did these incredible gains happen? How many hundreds of sq-km did they take? Looking at my sources I'm seeing maybe some 300m advance in individual sections of the front since the beginning of November... At this rate it'll take some 20 years to reach Kyiv.
@@iQKyyR3K I don’t what source you use but in Dnipr and Donbas region, Russians gain ground quick. And why did you think Russia is going for Kiev? Of course they were slow in Kiev because they aren’t focusing there entirely
@@divinesan7786 They tried for Kyiv, failed miserably, and then simply pretended that burning the VDV, losing hundreds of tanks, being bogged down in a miles long convoy was all just a decoy, while their best tanks were turned into scrap and abandoned. Wouldn't taking Kyiv be somewhat important for the whole demilitarization and disposal of Zelensky? > don’t what source you use but in Dnipr and Donbas region, Russians gain ground quick What cities/towns? I've got a map with a timeline, I'd just love to see what you're talking about the "quick" land gains over the past month or so. They managed a whole 10 km along a road around Kurakhove... in a month. I'd love to see what you mean by gaining ground quickly, but .3 km per day is a speed a snail could compete with. Those aren't overwhelming ground gains, but a grinding positional war. Which once again leads to massive losses for the attacker.
Simon has enough knowledge on everything of aspects of human lives, wars, politics, geography, countries, cultures, the behaviors of politicians, genocides that happen decades ago, even he knows the tribes of everyone he meet and told his district. It's really surprising to me!. Salutes ✋
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/wg2024 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, premium accounts and more! To play War Thunder for FREE on mobile: mwt.game/warographics
🧂🐌
one day you'll match your shirt from the video to the ad read ;)
THE ABSOLUTE IRONY of WAR THUNDER sponsoring this video is absolutely mindboggling! A Russian made game about, amongst others, Russian tanks. And the CEO of War thunder was outspoken pro invasion and pro Putin... But hey man! Someone's gotta pay the bills!
Nothing is real
Ah yes, the russian military copium simulator
The T14 clearly does not exist because no one has leaked classified military documents about it on War Thunder forums...
They probably dont care to leak its classified military documents because its a parade float and not a tank
It really makes me think of the "T-72s" we had at the NTC in the 80s-90s.(Sheridans with wood and fiberglass) It looks like a fake turret on a hull...like they couldnt get anything to work even half the time except the hull.
True
@@jefferydraper4019 As I recall the "Krasnovians" built their vehicles by hand as well, much like 18:40... except the NTC's objective wasn't trying to hoodwink ex-Soviet client states into forking over bucket-loads of Western currencies!
Of course, I've always been amused that 'Nam vintage M551 and M113 continue to perform more reliably than the "Bestest Tahnk EVAH!!" T-14.
@@fyrchmyrddin1937 It looks like the best use of Sheridan was as a T-72. Sad it too the army 60 years to finally put a replacement in production Especially since Cadillac-Gage Textron had the Stingray all along to replace it. Ahhh...the "Must spend all the money possible, instead of wisely" mentality of our DOD.
It also took them decades to get back to a vehicle like V-100 instead of Hummers for higher threat area LAVs.
Maybe the real T-14 was the rubles stolen along the way.
Yes - but you should see Shoigu's yacht!
This cracked me up
BAHAHAHahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, the T-14 is quite operational. It just won’t be used in conventional battles like the ones going around now. I suspect that the Russians are basically adding upgrades and so on.
Those rubles are operacional at least
Best Tank in the world, 100% stealth, no one has ever seen one in battle
cringe reused comment
@@GM-xk1nw
LOL, triggered.
Look guys, he made the predictable comment! Predictable comment award!
@@GM-xk1nwIt's still funny 😂
Come up with something original we have all seen this joke 1000 times
The T-14 performs its function exactly as designed: drive around in propaganda films and in circles on red square.
They remain master strategists
So modern T-35. Giant that looks good on parades but it's terrible in anything else
@@racingraptor4758but T-14 isn’t in combat yet, how do you know it is bad?
Well aside from that time it broke down during a parade and the Russians blamed the handbrake
@@Kakarot64. i mean it was. No tanks can breakdown then work after 15 minutes. And the Tow vehicle couldn’t even tow the tank
Two old men in Odessa talking about the war:
-What's the news?
-Have you not heard? There is a war!
-who is fighting?
-Russia says it is at war with NATO.
-How's is it going?
-100,000 Russians are dead, they have lost thousands of tanks, used up most of their missiles, and their economy is collapsing.
-and NATO?
-NATO hasn't shown up yet.
Dumb.
@@tlip3480 it's not wrong, Russia is destroying itself trying to take over part of Ukraine which is half heartedly supported by nato.
@@tlip3480 Yet true. 😆🤷♂️
@@tlip3480 funny
Funny and true! Poor future sunflowers
It's called T-14 because they only have 14
Hahahahaha. That got me good, man.
Are you a turtle?
And because it's "T"errible.
Yeah, the factories are busy repairing T55s and T64s. But once they're done with those they'll probably manufacture some T14s on masse.
But only one working😂
@@domtweed7323 From the T-14 Wikipedia page:
"In March 2024, the CEO of Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, finally confirmed that the tank has never been deployed in Ukraine for being too expensive and the T-90 being a more efficient option.[61]"
So it looks doubtful if it will be mass produced if they can build more T-90s for half the price.
Thanks to RedEffect and LazerPig, people now knows more about the engine of this obscure tank than their toaster.
except there was many flaws in his arguments I believe chieftain made a great video about it, an actual retired tank commander/historian
LazerPig is great. Top notch
Please don’t mention RedEffect. He spews Russian propaganda. Let him fade into obscurity.
@@jasoncurtis99 No he is not, he is borderline pseudohistorian, videos full of mistakes and bias etc. For example chieftain showcased some of that, as a part of that RedEffect vs LazerPig debacle.
The first thing I thought of when he mentioned the engine being bad was the big "Nuh Uh" war from Red Effect and ConeOfArc
50 million dollar tank meet 500 dollar drone. The drone might not win often but all it needs is to win once the tank has to win every time
And they can launch like 40 of those drones at one tank in an hour
@@ApexATL - ...and fail with 75% of those drone swarms yet still come out ahead.
And still the ukranian governement keeps asking for tanks in order to liberate russian occupied areas of the country
@@arthurwintersight7868With a fail rate of 99% the drones still win. $50 000 < $50 000 000
More like 50 million rubels
"If you don't see it, they don't have it." Best advice I ever heard about Russian technology.
and don't forget, they got filmed painting new numbers on their mobile icbm's as they circled the wagons so to speak..
Cope
They have done that since WW1, just not with icbms. @@ClannerJake
No one heard of their hypersonic intermediate ballistic missiles until a fortnight ago. The best advice for Russian technology is to never underestimate it.
@@DadaduduxD Anyone taking Russia seriously know they have the best hypersonic weaponry but not the idiot think tanks of the west.
Russian procurement.... it's a 30/70 split. 30% gets spent on procurement, 70% get spend on yachts
And then the yachts will be used to invade the west with russian money that was intended to be used on tanks. They remain master strategists.
Would the US be 50% procurement and 50% bureaucracy? Or am I being too optimistic?
@@gregruppert2555makes no sense.
It's not just yachts, there's kickbacks, villas, mansions, bribes need to be paid.
@@gregruppert2555 How about 30% theft, 30% bureaucracy and 30% procurement? Sounds like Pentagon to me.
This really is like when you ask a friend where his girlfriend / boyfriend is and he says that she / he lives out of town? "Oh, the tank is coming, it's just in a different war, but it'll be here!"
She goes to another school bro
She lives out of state bro
She lives in Canada and we facetime every night!
She's a model for those pictures in new frames and fresh wallets. You just missed her.
This is a great cheerup joke when you know that you are f***ked... 🤣
"We are in day 1007 of my three week invasion of Ukraine, we have not deployed our amazing T-14 Armata tank because it would be unfair to the Ukrainians to face our awesomness - I remain the master strategist" Said Darth Putin as he looked in the mirror :)
What the fcvk are you rabbiting about.
They deployed Oreshnik.
They might also deploy Satan and so on.
But your joke is really funny.
>Oreshnik
Napizdeshnik*
@@TimeCells2035 You really are coping all over the comment section, can't accept the fact that Russia can't win against Ukraine.
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation.
However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex:
-The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered.
-The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors.
-The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains.
-The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission.
-The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
"We are very lucky that they are so ducking stupid."
This quote sums it up pretty well. Russia really does design comparably good military hardware, it's just that their mismanagement and corruption at every civilian and military level prevents them from every fielding that stuff in high enough numbers, training enough crews and sustaining that deployment over the life cycle of everything from tanks, aircraft to ships. If they even had the organizational efficiency and funding of even France, the EU would be cooked, but instead they will forever be trapped in a perpetual state of being too far away from being an Avengers level threat but barely powerful enough not to be a complete pushover.
they put all their stats into defence instead of attack
There is also the BIG issue of Braindrain. The term associated with the mass migration of intelligent educated individuals moving elsewhere to find a better life.
Living in Russia is hard. The average rent of an apartment in Moscow is like 70% of a military pay check. The chances of you having an indoor flushing toilet decreases the further from Moscow you go within Russia.
So it's no surprise that in the early 2000s a huge proportion of Russia's engineers left for the west leaving Russia undereducated.
Hence the T-14 was built with as many off the shelf components and an existing oil pumping engine instead of designing one that was fit for purpose.
A lot of the electronic systems are outdated and Russia relies on western imports to have any advanced electronics. Something they no longer have access to.
And it's also really sad situation for the common soldier, because they also get fed the information that they have the greatest equipment of all time, and they believe it. This overconfidence leads to these ridiculous casualty numbers in ukraine.
@@frederiklohr9504 It's no wonder that troops on the front lines of Russia are refusing to use some equipment that they are provided with. Things like the ERA blocks on tanks being filled with rubber or that combat body armour that can't stop a 9mm.
@@amandarhodes4072 Yes. The normal soldier in russia is just cannon fodder. I just hope that the russian will one day be tired of this treatment. All of these young boys have loved ones, many of them families with children. And they die for putins desire for power...
When something sounds way too good to be true it usually is, especially when it comes to Russian claims.
For example the Mig 25 Foxbat,
Edit: Though this is a bad example as that was the West Hitting the panic button as they thought the Soviets had been stealing FX Designs. What drove fear of the foxbat was fear or espionage.
@@spartan2748 you realize that the USSR did not create propaganda about the MiG-25. It was the CiA specialists who assumed that it was a Soviet superfighter. The Russians designed it from the very beginning as an interceptor, and in this role it performed rather well.
@tonieistotne9471 I know. You know I admit this was a bad example.
@@spartan2748 It's like someone showed you a hammer. You immediately assumed that it was used to screw in light bulbs and that he must be great at it. In the corner, you designed an even better machine for screwing in light bulbs. And at the end you were laughing that the hammer couldn't handle light bulbs. As if of course it couldn't handle light bulbs, it was designed to drive nails, of course it wasn't the hammer's fault, you were an idiot who thought that the purpose of a hammer was to screw in light bulbs.
@@spartan2748 ok
I didn't notice the answer.
It's nice that you admit it, many people don't do it, they just keep denying it. have a nice day
I keep seeing Russian bots saying he's saving his super tanks for the rest of Euro/Nato lol
As well as "experts" stating that the only other reason that is holding T14 from being fielded is its crews' inability to properly use a hand-brake :)
either the T-14 is all hype train or way to expensive to build and send it into battle😱😱
@@raven4k998they used a 50 million dollar MIRV just to send a message. Either that tank cost even more, or its just option one
Funny thing about the new rissuan kenetic missile, how long, if america had to, would it take for the air force to swap out loads on our soon to be redundent minutemen missiles to do the same thing, only with many more projectiles, hitting twice as hard....
@@sjonnieplayfull5859pretty sure russia cenceled the (t14) project a few months back
Deployment: At a parade, where it failed!
I was surprised he didn't mention it! It literally broke down and had to be towed away.
Russia admitted it before backpedalling and saying that actually the tank didn't break, our military is just so poorly trained that the emergency brake was on midway through the parade 😂
@@charlemagne111027 lol I thought they tried passing a story that it was a “demonstration” of how to tow a failed vehicle… during a parade… in front of Putin himself 😂
Good lord how many times does this myth need be dispelled. The crew, operating a new vehicle they probably had only hours of time in, made a big dumb and put the handbrake on, it didn’t “break down” like they say it did.
However even if it had, it wouldn’t be worth caring about as a tank breaking down is far from an uncommon occurrence.
So it wasnt broken down they just towed it for fun? 😂@@maxdoom3521
You know what else has failed?
The Ukraine, Germany, the UK, and the US economy. I mean, 36 trillion debt? Good luck with this type of parade...
0:45 - Chapter 1 - The tank
2:50 - Mid roll ads
4:10 - Back to the video
11:00 - Chapter 2 - Deployment history
14:20 - Chapter 3 - The problems
This video is shity bro started it off with Russia is losing at the front Ukraine internet warriors are always hard at work
Stolen Swedish speed cameras. 😂
I also have a very real tank. It's hull is that of Battleship Yamato, just like... bigger, it's engine is based on the Glocke "ufo" thingy, and it's main gun a flippen volcano firing laser guided treaties of Brest-Litovsk.
Can we see it?
Ah yes, the west will be so terrified of this! You should become russian minister of defence
Such a radical mystery sounds like a 2025 treat 😮
The turret armor is an interesting compromise. Seems like an IFV could accomplish a mission kill, even if it can't get a mobility kill. A tank with no functioning turret or weapons isn't a great tank.
If the sensors are knocked off or out, it's already a mission kill, with no direct optics for the gunner it would no longer be able to shoot.
@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus thats true. Does it require a new turret at the depot to resume fighting?
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus A manned turret is just as vulnerable to optics being knocked out as an unmanned turret. Which just isn't very likely in either case.
@@PrivateMemo The difference is that a manned turret still has direct optical backup., something that an unmanned turret does not have due to its core design which rely entirely on cameras.
@@PrivateMemo Yes but a manned turret has a backup sight for the gunner... and it has actual armor on it and not literal sheet metal.
Shouldn't a T-14 video be on "Decoding the Unknown" with all the other cryptids?
Ok that's good lol 😂
Beyond Belief with Jonathan Frakes
T14 stands for Trabant 14, it takes 14 years to get one!
Ah yes, the west will be so terrified of this when we have 100 of them in 2070!
Omg can we get a special episode of the various leaks in warthunder forums... and hope it's randomly sponsored by them?
Ad: "Play Warthunder if you want an authentic military experience!"
Player: "I'm going to post these top secret technical documents to prove that the IRL version of this weapon should be much more effective in game than currently depicted, this winning me the online argument about whether or not my getting pwnd in the last match was a skill issue"
Ad: "An incredibly authentic experience!"
It has happend over 10 times ....
@@nikolaideianov5092 "If I had a nickel for every time somebody leaked to secret documents on a War Thunder message board I'd have less than a dollar, but still it's weird that it's happened so frequently"
@@nikolaideianov5092 I really hope that on some auspicious date the US Air Force officially posts the "top secret" technical documents on a newly out of date decommissioned cold war aircraft like the A-10 of F-16 to the WarThunder forums as a power move. "Oh yeah, copy what we perfected 50 years ago. See how well you do without the training budget and tactical flexibility of a US Air Force cadet"
14:55
"(the Maus) is cracking fun to play with on War Thunder"
I'm now convinced you've never touched this game. Driving the Maus like driving a barn powered by a 3 cylinder engine, and the armor is meaningless against 80% of the rounds people use at that battle rating. Not to mention you're so huge, a blind bomber in low earth orbit stands a fair chance of hitting you directly
Obviously he hasn't played that piece of shit game. He's too busy raking in cash
He was ironic in his comment
When tanks are now under threat from $500 drones, and you can build 10 T90’s for the price/time of 1 T14 with troops already trained on the T90 platform, then its a no brainer.
Yeah, drones make a lot of elite vehicles a poor value proposition. Probably going to be true for fighter planes soon as well.
You don't get 10 tanks for the price of one.
@@ChucksSEADnDEADconsidering the t14s production numbers
And the fact that its probably hand made
Its probably more then 10x
The M1 Abrams has its top speed is set by a governor, it has more than enough power to literally go faster than the track's can handle without being flung off.
I highly doubt the T-90 can actually go 80-90 kilomete4rs per hour for any extended time even over smooth ground, and probably more like 35-40 over open country.
The T-90 can, but only the A model, not the bogged down T-90M or the T-90MS models
@@bornonthebattlefront4883 it's also significantly smaller and has fewer crewmen than an Abrams.
also the abrams safest top speed is 47 on even ground.
@@bandit5875 Abrams tanks are fitted with a speed governor that limits their top speed. A crewman and a few hours with a wrench removes that limitation, then it can hit up to 70.
@@bandit5875 and you wouldnt wanna go that fast in open country anyway, youd beat up the crew.
Saw it on display in Russia in 2018:
The entire corner of the turret was made out of welds! Like they cut the Armour in 90 degrees instead of having the plates meeting up.
I spent ten years in tanks and I'm here to tell you, the T-14 was never a real project.
The initial photo's of the vehicle taken by Live Leak showed the turret armor was drywall held on with twists of wire.
The vehicle has never been seen with its turret traversed over its sides, meaning that the turret traverse mechanism was probably never hooked up.
Experimentation with unmanned turrets goes back to the 1980's, where it was determined to be unfeasible, and the idea of a turret containing the tank's most vital systems (gun trunnions, recoil mechanism, gun breach, elevation and traverse systems, autoloader, FCS and associated sensors), being protected by 40mm of armor is insane.
The T-14 was a publicity stunt, with what were probably old experimental turrets being dropped onto new hulls to give the illusion of a program.
If it was real that would be even worse. The only reason they wouldn't deploy it is that it was terrible.
@@Dragon-Believer That is an IF on top of an IF. The truth is they dragged a bunch of mismatched parts out of storage and got a ton of free propaganda for it.
Hearing that it was an uncrewed turret that can load ATGMs instantly made me raise an eyebrow. That autoloader must be insanely complex (if it even exists), & then you have to ask if the missiles are part of the regular loadout then exactly how many shells do they have ready loaded?
& then if there are problems or you need to restock the autoloader do you have to disengage & exit the tank to access the turret?
(Just make Strv 103s again world, the world yearns for S-Tanks 😩)
There are videos (typically shot from above) of them spinning the turret.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Fantastic, so at some point they hooked up the traverse mechanism on one of them. That doesn't change the fact that the armor is drywall, the tank hasn't gone into production 9 years after its roll out, and the idea was moronic from day 1.
For you War Thunder Generals, the top of the turret is where a lot of works gets done. You can see 360 degrees around the vehicle, turning at a moment's notice. You can HEAR the battlefield and the approach of other vehicles. You can communicate wirelessly with other tank commanders and infantry through an ancient technology known as "voice."
With a crew of 4, or even 3, crew you can maintain and recover your own vehicle. You can put a person out on local security or have a casualty and still function.
A tank isn't only a combat vehicle, its a massively large, massively heavy, massively complex one. Two guys playing video games in the hull aren't going to get it done.
I also wanna add this: it doesn’t sound like it’d be very good in Ukraine anyway. You mentioned it lacks turret armor: that being the case, it stands to reason that those things might pop like zits if a spicy DJI hits said turret. It might not kill the crew, but a tank is pretty useless on an active battlefield with a turret that’s been soup-canned
Most tanks in Ukraine now are killed by artillery or drones, so yeah having a weak turret is horrible.
And it's quite unlikely that the crew, even when sealed off, will survive that. Ammunition explosions generally rip tanks apart
Yeah a vulnerable turret doesn’t make sense against cheap drones
Imagine a former superpower invading a country they border and getting quagmired by farmers. That would be embarrassing.
Imagine how embarrasing it would be to lose most of your "modern" military equipment and have to rely on rusty old T55s
This could be a lot of wars…
That's the US😂
@toututu2993 what country that we border did we invade?
@@xjunkxyrdxdog89 let the vatniks be delusional :)
Everything Russia states mostly means 1000% increased number or completely opposite, Thus battlefield integration probably means everybody can see it and themselves, cannot. 1000mm penetration with "vacuum" shell probably means 100mm and unrealistic conditions like clear of sight, no wind and target is immobile and angled 90 degrees.
The final conclusion is at least partly what I had assumed. No assembly line, no access to parts and the examples we did see were one off machines. I rather doubt that we'll ever see one in action
Needs some re designing too.
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation.
However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex:
-The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered.
-The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors.
-The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains.
-The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission.
-The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
@@JRriffin No one knows if it needs or doesnt need a redesing since it hasnt seen action.
@@sergiom9958 can you stop control c control ving this?
You won't see it on the frontline because it's not in active service, it's still being developed, it's stupid to even make this video, it's like asking why we don't see the Abrams X being deployed.
You also must ask why their “gen 5” fighter is not seeing combat either .
That's one way of ensuring the enemy never sees their "stealth" hardware...
Cause its not 5 gen lol. Radar cross section is a joke on the SU57
Because it's busy at the Beijing airshow being laughed at by the Chinese for it's awful build quality and missing flat head screws. Not a joke.
Because they needed the better part of a decade to produce 30 of them
@when someone calls it stealth I point at the intakes and the engines. That by itself makes me laugh.
So, the company that stuffed up designing a tank for 20 years then stuffed up the next tank they designed? Inconceivable!
The T14 story is like the old german joke: Can I get a cigarette? Mine are still in the shop.
Maybe the real T-14 was the friends we made along the way.
...the money we stole along the way...
Where are the Tesla towers? Attack bears? That one chick with the Sniper Rifle? This is all very disappointing!
The west made better fantasies of Soviet technology than the Soviets.
and the kirov😳
As I understand it, if they send in the T-14 and it doesn't turn out to a be superstar.. there go all their military contracts.
Yeah it would make it less interesting to buy. But at the same time, it's the best way to review the tank and improve on it, so that it is actually interesting (again) to buy.
I doubt many people think it is currently a superstar anyways.
I assumed their contracts were with countries that could not buy tanks from America/EU.
So they would just buy no tanks or Russia's turds.
We may be laughing now but when the Brics country's introduce the gold backed currency putting the dollar in deep trouble! This is the thing that turns our countries upside down. I for one is looking to this as something leading to a very dark time.
They may only have a few Armatas however it's there nuclear weapons that block the US, Being apart of the Brics group means Russia has all the trading partners it needs with gold backed currency, Russia and the Brics country's may take control of this world
@@Baddy187 And thats where Syria helped.A much much less dangerous environment to test it.
I love that I can click on any video in my feed from a channel I’ve never seen before and there is a 40% chance I’ll see Simon.
Keep hustling king.
Pro Tips for those wanting to do Russian military cosplay:
Airsoft gear off of aliexpress is equal in quality to Russian combat kit
Don’t be afraid to use WWI and WWII era weapons if you don’t have a modern AK variant on hand, as that is authentic to Russian logistics
If you want to dress up your truck to look like a T-14, don’t be afraid to use cardboard, as most of the T-14s we’ve seen are likely T-72s with cardboard body kits
If you wantbto do Russian cosplay just buy Russian gear. The actual Russian army had to get Aliexpress gear because they sold so much gear to Western airsofters.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD western airsofters disarming the russia army
Lol
Just the fact that its at least somewhat true is just funny
1:43 this is the most Soviet test of armor I have ever seen.
“How we test tank, comrade?”
“Drive it off ramp really fast into water”
“What will that test, comrade?”
“How cool it looks flying into water for Stalin, dah!”
They must've put rocket boosters on that thing lol
I love that test!
In russia, tanks fly, planes become bombs and ships get promoted to submarines! The flying BT-5 became the insparation for every modern russian tank, thats why they throw their turret so high! russians are master strategists.
the fact that the tank itself isnt even a Russian design.. America gave them the plans and all of their leftovers since they figured the suspension design was not what
They needed, so they donated them to Russia lol
@@fishyfishy3140 And it's even harder to believe that this thing and the T-90 have the same engine... Even though they are 60 odd years apart :D
The Armata ist by far the best and most modern tank in the world! It even has a German WW2 Simmering engine.
It does not, it's a shit tank but don't listen to lazerpig
Russia, The "Paper Bear". Growls but doesn't bite.
Dumb
They might not have as much capability as they claim, but a lot of Ukrainian’s have died as a result of their invasion, so cut the propaganda and view them as the threat that they are.
@@herbieoliver2682well the only outcome to this is inevitable it’s just a matter of time
imo social media really needs to take a step back
all I see now is channels like this making money off what’s going off,
Fuelling both sides
If Ukraine actually do get the upper hand, PUTIN (not Russia as a whole) will make sure he’s safe and unleash something that will put us all in the dark ages or try
yes the west will have catastrophic destruction and devastation
but what happens to us will be the 10 fold to Russia
All because the one man wants to be the school yard top dog
1939/1945 springs to mind
@@herbieoliver2682They have died at a multiplicative rate faster than that of Ukrainian forces and have expended billions more than NATO. They are a threat in the same way that the USSR was a threat to Finland.
Edit: Not only was the threat minimal, but the fallout from Russia being seen so poorly convinced Hitler to invade and cost him the entire war. 😊
It bites. Just look at Ukraine. How many died, how many are dying.
The confirmation of the T14 performance - "trust me bro"
TH-camrs who mark the commercial part (chapter) earn my sub. Good job mate
If you want to talk about Russian wunderwaffe, you should make a fantasy theme channel.
In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation.
However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex:
-The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered.
-The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors.
-The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains.
-The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission.
-The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
@@sergiom9958 Let's get one thing straight, the T-14 is absolutely not a a generational advancement in tank design. Everything that the T-14 supposedly incorporates is stuff that their western counterparts, i.e. Abrams and Challenger, has had as standard since the early 2000's. Also, given Russia's lack of capabilities in developing truly advanced tech it is highly likely that every bit of tech incorporated into the Amata is at least a couple generations behind anything that the west can field. Also considering that Russia is a very poor nation, and the fact that high tech costs about the same worldwide, regardless of where you reside, it is also highly unlikely that Russia can even procure the tech in viable quantities.
@ you are wrong in all senses.
The T14 is the new generation regardless of the origin of some of the concepts it incorporates. For example, the Abrams marked a new generation of MBT although some of the core advances were not US (like choban and thermal imaging) or not even the first one to use them (Choban or the L7 gun is a British invention or the later 120mm is a German one).
The totally unmanned MBT turret with a protected capsule for the crew (and toilet) is a Russian invention. The APS is a Soviet invention. Others maybe not but that also applies to others like the M1 tank; for ex the M1 was not the 1st to use a turbine but is was the Swedish Strvd 103. Or another one like the composite armour invented and fully implemented first by the Soviet Union.
Your statement that Russian systems are “several generations behind the west” only shows your total ignorance. Systems like the S300-S400-S500 or subs or planes like the SU57 or MBTs guns or missiles or ATGM etc (and many others just to name a few) are top line products that have no problem facing any other in their category. Its obviously true that Russia fell behind in some areas like thermals and microchips; but you forget that no country on earth is self sufficient in their Defence needs. The US uses the Israeli Trophy, a French radar in their corvettes, the German L44, will have Italian made ships, etc. and I could go on with many examples in many countries.
Your statement that Russia can’t develop highly advanced and new “tech” is false and ridiculous.
Your statement that Russia is “a very poor nation” is even more ridiculous; Russia is 1st world country you like it or not. Because I Salk remember you that the line between 1st and 3rd world is marked by (for ex) the UN and not your very ignorant and biased vision.
So don’t embarrass yourself with such a comment.
@@sergiom9958 every smart person already escaped russia so they cant develop anything
@@sergiom9958cope harder 😂
Hey Simon thanks for making history and information fun again!
Wonder how high the turret will fly when it’s hit by a missile, probably not as high as the t-80
To the writer of this: well done. Well written, seemingly well researched and a great job of providing Simon with quality copy.
To Simon: Well read. You seemed like you knew every bit of this and didn't need to read anything to provide us with that information. Excellent presentation.
This tank, if deployed, would be the king of the turret toss
There are less than half a dozen x shaped engines that have ever been put into full production, and one of those was later replaced by v type engines due to reliability issues.
And a different one was also discontinued for unreliability. If GM and Rolls-Royce couldn't hammer out reliability issues with an x shaped design, I don't find it hard to believe that it is a fundamentally bad design.
The Armata is a joke. It is a fairy tale that broke down last time it was on parade. Oh, the brake locked up? Trash.
Still coping over that one video from years ago you do know that tank actually drove off by itself so how did it break down?
I heard that it was operator error. The driver accidentally put it in park.
No way to tell if its good or bad , we haven't seen it in action yet, all information about it more or less is gathered by independent media and "youtubers" so even the stats we have about it is suspect. And yes parade thing does demonstrate that the crews in 2015 not familiar with the vehicle or were poorly trained. Dont get me wrong it might be terrible , But it also might be very good , There is just no way to know till until we have actual statistics about it that are 100% verified or better yet actual combat performance.
@@ailinofaolin8897it’s been years and Russia still hasn’t used a single one. They either don’t exist or are still not usable. Knowing Russias ineptitude it’s a combination of both reasons. Go suck Ivan’s boot somewhere else bot
@@ailinofaolin8897bud it’s a failure deal with it.
Last time I was this early I became a father
😂
😆🤣
Lol
🎉
Best one of these responses I've seen yet.
Back in 1980 I was involved in the US Army’ Humvee acquisition program. Besides all the usual automotive suspects (General Motors, Chrysler et al) prototypes and pre-production vehicles Lamborghini delivered several Cheetahs and LM-001, and a year later the LM-002. Troops loved the Lambos as they were gas powered and way too fast for military use. Lambo made diesels but they were for tractors and agricultural equipment. Each Lambo was hand built so there were difference even among the small batch we received. Nobody could say how fast Lambo could build a production line and get it going, if at all.
Kudos to Simon. His presentation of this video makes it appear that he actually is a SME on the information. His inflections and presentation make it seem like he really knows the information. He is a great presenter of prepared information and should be commended.
Got to admit who works on Warfronts research has been doing amazing work. Normally channels like this not focused on specific armoured vehicles get things wrong. the Merkava video was decent. though you could of talked about how it was made and how crew survivability was paramount hence the engine in the front despite its downsides
I believe he did talk about that in that video..
But I can't say I remember it 100%.
Sorry in advance if I'm wrong
What Russia says it can do and what Russia is capable of are two completely different things 😂
So like Nato?
@@divinesan7786 Unsure about NATO, however, the US and UK are combat proven and perhaps the most competent forces on Earth. Russia has never been effective in waging war and this is no exception.
@@GunnyO326 that makes no sense, US and UK were both fighting in wars with lesser enemies and majority of them in recent years are against insurgents. Can’t say US do any better when they failed to suppress Taliban and left tons of tech for them. And right now Russia is doing well on the field so saying “never been” is false
@@divinesan7786 like your mom.
@@rewild6134 oh i thought it was your mom, because i met her last night
If there are only a small number of T-14s built at the start of the conflict, it makes sense for them not to be fielded - as there wouldn't be enough to equip a formation and there would likely be very limited spare parts for repair and maintenance. Likewise, the reason to not start building more after conflict started is down to logistics. The workforce experience / knowledge base and tooling for older designs would probably be more readily available; and thus easier and quicker to set up and expand. A similar situation arose in the UK during WWI, where they were in the process of replacing the old Webley revolver with a semi-automatic but abandoned that idea and retained the revolver since that was the one that they could manufacture at scale quickly.
The problem it’s that it’s believed that all of the T-14s produced are different variations over the years as they tried to fix the problems. None of them are in a finalized state. None are believed to be serialized, meaning in production status. Even if they wanted to, putting any of them in the field against a modern army would result in problems. In Syria, they had a small number appearing here and there basically out of range of the rebels who had no means to attack them. Russia requires large numbers of sales of their weapons systems to other states to defray the R&D and manufacturing costs. If their latest systems, such as the SU-57 and the T-14 are lost in the war, other countries will be reluctant to purchase them, making them too expensive for Russia to buy for themselves. They’ve already seen that happen Tom sales of their latest helicopter. As they were shot down in Ukraine, China, India, Turkey and others cancelled their orders.
@@melgross didnt know about the heli sales, thats interesting.
How many TH-cam channels do you have, I've seen you all over the places, covering dozens of topics! Good work man!
It's a nice parade princess, when it can even move under its own power, but once you look closer, you get comedic values like their new "stealth" jet being put together with sunk Phillips screws...
Wunderwaffe didn't work the first time, it won't work now.
I mean, anything is possible when it is complete fantasy! Its called Imagination! *spong bob meme*
The T-14 is as illusive as their super stealth jet. So stealthy it does t seem to fly outside Russian airspace.
"We know the best part of bugger all about this..." This had to be the most quintessentially British phrase I've heard Simon say. And he himself is already quintessentially British to begin with. Yes, I did choke on my tea is amusement.
M-14 like many other post Soviet projects is an example of what happens to your project when you run out of money for Research and development as well as running out of international clients and collaborations
That ofc doesn't means that is impossible to see some of it's technology being applied to already existing platforms in a form of upgrade kits or directly from the factory
Basically, it's the su57 of the army.
Oh no, don't send the scary thing! It may fall out of the sky and onto ukrainian soldiers! NOOOOOO
the most dangerous 'weapon' of the su57 is the bolts that fall out of the fuselage while it's in the air
those things can pick up some speed as they fall... if it's high enough
The Su57 and the Armata are in a very similar situation and suffer the same problems. In the same way the Panther or the M1Abrams marked a change in tank development generations, the Armata (and those like it like the Eurotank E-MBT) seems to mark the beggining in a new tank generation.
However it suffers the SAME problems other new weapon systems have suffered through history which explain its absence in Ukraine. For ex:
-The fear of losing it to enemy hands. In WW1 the American Expediotionary Force had trained with the brand new and game changing BAR rifle; but the high command refused to use it for fear of it being captured by Germany and be reverse engineered.
-The fear of being a hypothetical PR disaster that could prevent exports due to still being untested since Russia expects (or used to) it to be an export succes like its predecessors.
-The need to focus all resources on currently available and well known tanks like T62 or T72. This idea is not new; for ex during WW2 the US rejeccted several new vehicles because it already had what it needed and even though potentially better vehicles could be produced it didnt make sense to stop the existing production chains.
-The high reliance on non available foreing components that could turn a simple repair into an impossible mission.
-The impossibility to introduce on time and high scale the philosophy changing mindset and training, logistics, etc. This is probably the most important aspect. For example, before WW2 the USMC didnt provide M1 Garands to its frontline troops due to the refusal of officers (and not due to lack of money) for being "a new weapon they didnt understand". So the first USMC guys to get it were rear echeln troops.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons(and not the only ones) we dont see the T14 in action. Maybe in the future we will see it fully operational; but now we dont.
@@sergiom9958 2The Su57 and the Armata are in a very similar situation and suffer the same problems."
That they're both imaginary wunderwaffen?
@@slebbeog imaginary like american victories in modern history
The T-14's main issue appears to be its total failure to actually, you know, exist.
Underrated
Funny all the Russian bots defending a tank no one has seen in actual battle !!!
Hence all the stealth jokes that winds up the bots !!!
Simon brings all the russobots to the yard
😂 You havent seen them because russia now has the technology to make tanks invisible. They remain master strategists.
It's as funny as the one bashing a tank no one know anything about...
The two are as dumb as they can be.
The tank has not been deployed because it's still in active development.
Good video, albeit based on the dated info already covered by other channels in the past couple of years.
Armor pen is in solid steel mm.
So when a weapon claim to pen 1000 mm, or 1 meter, it is only in context of regular steel. Not actual modern armor composition, which obviously is not one meter thick because that would be too heavy. Does not mean all weapons will pen the thickness of armor even if the armor is less in mm thick. Just for reference the old Eryx anti tank missile system also has 1000 mm tandem shape charge pen.
It's been known for years that the T14 armata only had a few prototypes made as it is riddle with problems starting with it's engine. It has been mostly abandoned for a modernized T90. So there are no T14 armata in Ukraine cuz the model has never been battle ready. Almost all the fancy stuff you mention doesn't work.
Needs western components as well which they probably can get but at prices that don't justify using them on a non battlefield proven piece of hardware.
I can confirm this is false. I have a pic given to me by a friend of one undergoing testing in Ukraine.
@@invadegreece9281 July 2018: ''Russia will not mass-produce its new third-generation T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) as it is too costly'', Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov told Russian media.
August 2023.Russia report a few T14 were deployed far from front lines for testing and removed them shortly after.
March 4th 2024:''The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine''
August 20th 2024: ''The T-14's future is uncertain, with the possibility that ongoing problems and high costs may lead to its abandonment or a complete redesign.''
This went exactly as expected. Orcs being orcs.
Welcome to the Club of 1933. Back then "the guys" with the nice flag with the funny cross inside did the same. It's starts with dehumanizing other humans and ends with Chambers full of Pesticide
Agreed. Despite the abhorrent actions that the Russian state is currently engaged in, and the frustrating refusal of the russian state to change, dehumanising other people only ever ends the same way. @@TheGesox
@@grantjohnstone9787 Yet they will keep doing it, because in their mind they are superior.
It make you wonder why so many men lost their life during the last world war.
Oh you cited Porshe at all...
I'd keep a sturdy umbrella handy.
Fastest tank in production would be the leopard 2: with engine regulators removed and pushing it towards 2000hp, a Leopard 2 achieved over 100kph in trials on a closed part of the Autobahn.
Downsides: steering is nearly impossible. And the driver might not hear the command to stop or slow down, because noise levels rise way above that of a starting jet engine...
"We have a super tank/missile/nuke, trust us guys."
The T14 and the SU75 were the friends we made along the way.
They also have their super stealth fighter, the SU-57, that's apparently the best in the world. That fighter is also not to be seen anywhere in Ukraine. Wonder why.... :-D
its just that stealthy, even the march one eye ball cant see it
@@olivernrgaard3268so stealthy that not even the Russians have seen it.
It’s reported to have been spotted in the Ukraine war…..after being damaged by HIMARS on the ground!
Isn't that what super stealthy mean, the ability to be invisible both to electronic detection or naked eyeball, that might be the reason it hasn't been seen. The West didn't see Oreshnik coming either, I wonder why.
@@garlicandchilipreppers8533Thank you for your contributions to Russia superiority comrade. 10,000 rubles has been deposited into your account
We can hear Simon again. Audio man got a telling off didn’t he 😂
As long as there's a perfectly good, smoothly functioning assembly line for the T-90, there's not much point investing in the T-14 assembly line. As far as I can tell, there's an experimental assembly line for the T-14 in existence, but it's far from perfect, it's not completely standardised and there's a very limited supply of T-14 parts, which means the output is probably around one tank a month. With an output like that, there probably aren't more than a hundred T-14s in service and they're probably all preproduction versions, used for testing and training. In all likelihood, tests have revealed some problems, which need to be sorted out before mass production can be started. The component shortage caused by the war probably prevents them from manufacturing more T-14s in the near future, so you won't be seeing a lot of these in the field. When NATO starts WW3 for real, all available tanks will probably be sent to the front, though, so that's when you may see those preproduction tanks actually doing something.
easily the4 best speake3r on youtube in a long time
Last time I was this early Russia we still the strongest army in Russia
It still is?
Nearly, the Ukrainians are in Russia and so are the N. Koreans.. Russia is the third best army in Russia now.
@@justthatguy-yq2py Never has been.
@@leventekocsis9103 explain?
Malachite? Did they slap copper plates on to the thing? Odd name indeed :D
Oreshnik(hazel tree)🥰🥰
Pion(peony)🥰🥰
Giacint(hyacinth)🥰🥰
and freaking bri'ish Storm Shadow
They have rocked named nut three
14:46 not this. it is NOT based on the Porsche engine. the only common things they share is the layout. it's likey saying a modern V4 engine is based on a 100 year old engine because both are V4.
people should stop citing lazerpig and his BS.
also the Porsche engine was NOT designed for the Maus, it was designed for a Tiger
Where's your video?
@@anotheremerex What?
It has a wound up rubber band for an engine m8. Source - prove me wrong, find an Armata actually in service. It's a Potemkin Tank.
@@JosephKanoidk man I have a pic of one being tested in the field a few years ago
Well in addition to other factors it could also be that as long as they only have 20 of them, the logistical tail to field them in combat isn’t worth it.
+1 thumb up for using the word bollocks perfectly and exactly where I was hoping you would causing me to spit my food out. Thank you!😂
Objectively looking at the question, the answer is really simple. It is shelfed because Russia is fighting a war. They have/had masses of T-70/80/90 tanks and have running production lines for T-90's and 80's. These also happen to be much cheaper to build than a completely new platform with teething problems. Lastly the T-14 offers nothing much on the modern battlefield compared to the tanks Russia is modernizing/building for less money.Because the armata cant deal with drones just as any other russian or western tank and will explode when driven onto a mine just like any other. Russia is not 1944-45 Germany wasting resources on wunderwaffe while fighting a war..
Just before this video I watched one saying how much better Germany would do if they build Panthers (yeah yeah I know they sucked at the start but not later on) instead of Tigers and King Tigers.
They won't deploy the T14 because
A: Has not passed military trials or entered official service.
B: What's the point if the tank is still 100% vulnerable to drones?
C: They would burn threw their small stockpile in a few weeks
D: It could fall into western hands, and then it would be analyzed by people that don't have an interest in hyping it up.
Point A is not true, because Sergey Chemezov, CEO of Rostec, has said on 4th of March that T-14 is in service of the Russia army.
The Russian military is a paper tiger.
One thing you failed to mention in this video is that on forums of the sponsored game War Thunder you can often find military leaks so it is probably very good place to find out more info about T14.
It is the best tank from certain perspectives, no other tank has the same level of stealthiness! Plus as was shown in their parade it’s got a fabulous hand brake sooo good it takes a second tank thingy to make it move!
Toward the end, you touched upon the likely reason Russia has not risked its dozen or so T-14s. Russia wants to export the T-14 and videos/images of wrecked T-14s will not help sales.
true. Imagine this tank falls into western hands and they study it and find out that it's nowhere near as good as russia says. But that actually doesn't matter, because nobody wants them anyway.
In the parade video the driver locked the parking brake and did not know how to release it.
1 also broke down but coping is fun too!
Ah yes cope
That... actually doesn't sound any better than the engine overheating bit suggests a level of fundamental incompetence.
20:39 Simon got someone new in his basement "XXXXXXXXX"
It’s [REDACTED] and they are [REDACTED]
@@NoKapMan thanks
I think that it hasn't been deployed in Ukraine because it's not designed to handle the kind of threat environment it would see now. Shoulder fired munitions and ATGMs are one thing but small near undetectable drones are another. The vast majority of Russia's tank losses are due to drones not in tank vs tank engagements. The loss of T-14s in an environment it's not capable of fighting in would be yet another colossal blow to the Russian arms export industry and would kill whatever little chance remains of the T-14 being accepted for export, tainting future designs too. Probably the same reason why the few Su-57s are only being deployed well within Russian airspace to fire standoff missiles at Ukrainian jets.
I remember when they rolled out the "Terminators". It resulted in then being swarmed by drones. Two lost, along with the recovery vehicles sent out after them.
Actually the vast majority of Russian tank losses are from mines and artillery. Drones make up a small proportion and are more commonly used to finish off armour that's already been abandoned.
1:44....What drugs was the driver on?😮😮😂😂
Strong ones by the looks of it
😂😂
Seems to me russia is like Germany in the later days of WW2 depending on wunderwaffen.
Yup, the famous drop in the ocean. Russia definetly can produce decent hardware, but only in such small numbers that it will never matter.
Doing badly in a war? Have you been looking at the maps?
Yes, Russia has spent a year barely advancing 50 km, while expending thousands of men.
Actually look at a map at the beginning of this year and now with the territories held.
Those are horrendous losses for minimal gain.
@@iQKyyR3Kminimum gains? Dude they are gaining faster than Ukraine could while beating Ukraine in Kursk.
@@divinesan7786 You'll have to enlighten me... Where and when did these incredible gains happen?
How many hundreds of sq-km did they take?
Looking at my sources I'm seeing maybe some 300m advance in individual sections of the front since the beginning of November... At this rate it'll take some 20 years to reach Kyiv.
@@iQKyyR3K I don’t what source you use but in Dnipr and Donbas region, Russians gain ground quick. And why did you think Russia is going for Kiev? Of course they were slow in Kiev because they aren’t focusing there entirely
@@divinesan7786 They tried for Kyiv, failed miserably, and then simply pretended that burning the VDV, losing hundreds of tanks, being bogged down in a miles long convoy was all just a decoy, while their best tanks were turned into scrap and abandoned. Wouldn't taking Kyiv be somewhat important for the whole demilitarization and disposal of Zelensky?
> don’t what source you use but in Dnipr and Donbas region, Russians gain ground quick
What cities/towns?
I've got a map with a timeline, I'd just love to see what you're talking about the "quick" land gains over the past month or so.
They managed a whole 10 km along a road around Kurakhove... in a month.
I'd love to see what you mean by gaining ground quickly, but .3 km per day is a speed a snail could compete with.
Those aren't overwhelming ground gains, but a grinding positional war.
Which once again leads to massive losses for the attacker.
T14's engine runs on unicorn farts
Yes, and the gun is just temporary. It will be replaced later by a laser that just melts the whole batllefield
Simon has enough knowledge on everything of aspects of human lives, wars, politics, geography, countries, cultures, the behaviors of politicians, genocides that happen decades ago, even he knows the tribes of everyone he meet and told his district.
It's really surprising to me!. Salutes ✋