as much as I appreciate mr. Hazell's insights into academia, I feel like the actual answer posed in the title remains unanswered. He talked about braindrain, different approaches in academics, but not really about armour or vehicle design at all. Of course, some information is classified, but even so this felt like it veered away from the subject beyond usefulness.
@@petergerdes1094 That’s what I’m getting from this also. You can’t really talk about current design without looking a little bit at where the next generation of engineers comes from, and what quality of them youre likely to have.
I guess his answer was not enough open source work being done in university and too much top secret stuff in the government sector leads to stagnation in innovation. The Soviets could get around that problem by dint of massive investment in military R&D. The Russians simply don't have the resources the Soviets did, and also spend lower % of there GDP on the military. As too, has that lead to a falling behind in design? I think the Soviets were failing behind in the late Soviet era, and I think in the early Russian period there was vertically no invest in military R&D, it has recovered to a lower rate now. Russia can thank there lucky stars the west rested on its laurels.
The Russians are suffering from the efficiency of Soviet Industry in producing military hardware and the former size of their military. They created such a massive glut of surplus weapons that even thirty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, there are still huge stockpiles. That lowered the value of their hardware and made it so widely available that most countries opted for incremental upgrades and not new weapons. With the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy also drastically contracted so there were limited funds to develop new weapons and if they couldn't rely on foreign orders how do they pay for it?
Bernardt. I love your videos but this video was "Is Russian Armor Design falling behind?" and we got a long discussion about universities, publishing, computer science and erm....nothing about armour that I could see :D
The thing to understand is that Russia is trying to be a superpower with an economy the size of Australia's. Even if they somehow created a genuine superweapon they do not have the economic resources to produce more than a few parade models. And that was before the 2014 sanctions and the debarcle of the Ukrainian invasion.
Boy, you dont understand economy. Russia maintains and army arsenal rival usa in size, mainly land forces cause geography. And with their small economy, somehow europe is now in recession and germanies industry will be reduced by over a third if they shut down oil and gas to europe. Think before you write such stupid statement.
Its not about superpower as a goal don't get yourself confused. We are living not in DC universe. Its all about market owning and making profits, not some stupid superpower dreams.
When you are outproducing Australia 20-30 times, in real world products 1:1 you can have an economy of the size of Australia and be a superpower. Out with the 300+$ hammers, in with the 15$ ones, of you know what I mean. How much steel Russia / Australia / US produces? Just curious. Don't even look at China, since it dwarves you all.
If you go by real economy size, not nominal, that is, you adjust for prices, it's more like the size of Germany, though not as advanced in manufacturing.
Yup. Russian tank "design" is fine. It's an par with any seven year old. Russian tank manufacturing however is way behind. Russian tank manufacturing may even be lagging behind that hypothetical seven year old.
This is a terrible indictment of the University system. Professors are not paid to teach, but instead publish to make more money for the University. The teaching is being done by students who are working for their PHD. The normal students are not receiving the education they paying for. When I went to a private college in the 60s, all of the professors, including the head of each department taught. When my son went to a public university, he never saw the head of the Department. Apparently, this is still going on, and the average student is getting the shaft.
I'm a more recent graduate from a public university, and at least in my department (the History Department), the head not only taught classes, but taught many classes for undergrad and graduate students alike. That's the exception not the rule though, many departments in many universities are dumping all the courses onto adjunct professors and the like. But it has very little to do with research or lack of research at a given university. Instead, it's a result of Universities being pressured to cut staff costs and raise more funds from the student body.
The idea that professors don’t teach is a myth. I teach in STEM at a large public research university in the USA. In my department we have about 45 faculty and 100 grad students. We’re researchers and many of us have external grant funding, but nonetheless *every* professor teaches. It’s true that many of our lower-division courses are taught by grad students, but upper-division courses are taught by faculty. This is the norm at research universities. It gives our PhD students some teaching experience, and our grad students are generally conscientious and effective teachers.
I graduated from one of the largest American public universities with my PhD less than 10 years ago and my experience was the opposite. Classes were all taught by professors. Some grad students taught recitations. As far as paper mills go, yes the professors ARE paid to publish because that is the deliverable for the outside funding that they receive. If it wasn't for outside funding resources (like described in the video), the amount of research being produced would be a fraction of what it is now.
as someone who went to one of those universities which had huge defense contracts, it wasn't at least to me the defense spending but that the university seemed to prioritize the R&D over actual opportunities for students and the facilities for students. We had 60 year old labs and crappy equipment while the university was building a state of the art facility for GE just down the road and had literally an entire second campus just for the research groups
I think it might be a bit apples to oranges at the moment. For one, we are seeing basically T72B3, a 1970s design thats been modernized. That seems to have been the majority tank used in Ukraine for instance. Which is fairly old, i mean it is modernized but you can only get up to a certain level so far. The other problem is, this is a conflict with a near peer adversary, Ukraine is armed with similar weapons that Russia has, maybe not same quality, but at start of the war, they had similar equipment, arguably with NATO weapons shipments, that gap was closed in some regard, at least to quality of weapons, but obviously not quantity. We haven't faced similar challenges in a long time, and Iraq/Afghanistan were not quite the same situation. Although kind of a small taste, is the destruction Turkish Leopard tanks faced in nothern Syria.
From what I've understand turkish Leopard were used without support and parked on the top of hills to be targeted. That being said tank forces in the west need serious upgrades as well. We both spend too much time on low intensity conflicts ( I mean thank God but we need to be prepared for the worst).
In physics, the feeling I get regarding the mathematical focus of russian work is that during the cold war, they were doing really good work, but certain resources weren't there, so while the west was able to fund and build experiments, russia considered theory and phenomenology. In many cases it was very forward thinking. We can only now make use of lot of the papers they wrote 40 yrs ago, since materials and methods and have advanced.
@@johnpaul3099 This is just an anecdote, so maybe. But they could be in control of the all the worlds money for all it matters - that doesn't mean they spent it on physics experiments, they went bankrupt trying to prop up their nuclear weapons program after all. 2nd largest economy doesn't mean much when compared to collaborations that draw funding from the worlds largest + the next 5 down the list for example as well.
@@shanerooney7288 They forced, bribed and fooled a lot of German engineers after the war into working for them, not to mention they bought foreign licenses and also stole tech through espionage.
@@johnpaul3099 yes but they spent muxh of it on the military and wasted tons of it. There wasnt much to finance studies of things that dont improve the prestige of the ussr (see the space program), or provide a military or financial return.
Regarding Bernhardt's observation at 11:00, and for those who are less familiar, one of the most informative "meta" pieces of information on an academic paper is the order of the names of the authors. It is very, very, very likely that "first" author is the lead writer and editor and the "last" author is the project director - the one who employs the first author - and that the "middle" authors are collaborators. So, if Dr. J. Smith is a notable expert with a lab full of research assistants, a quick search of Google Scholar will have a lot of 'last author' citations and less frequent 'first author' citations.
ปีที่แล้ว +8
In China, the first author would always be the person with the highest bureaucratic position
That's notoriously untrue for a lot of fields. I've seen medical publications where people worked hard for years, then a professor with more status walks in and they put their name first, or the people who did all the work never get promoted. So the real expert is the first name with no, or the lowest, academic qualification in the list. Art and detached academic institutes are notorious for this as well. They do something and by the time it gets good, management steps in, puts their names on it and the people who did the work vanish. And since this kind of credit-stealing allows both bumping the real authors down the list, or adding undue names at the back, it really distorts the image. For example I have a book on military logistics where the most prominent AND the last names are responsible for the most questionable sections of the book.
@@nvelsen1975 For a book, it IS my experience that the first author is the lead - but not for academic papers. Interesting to hear all of your experiences.
9:55 One of professors on my university told us the similar thing, where the some Russian scientist has designed an Anti-Ballistic missile system missile during the USSR years, someone has put the file somewhere and they forgot about it, until they re-discovered the design like 30 years later and they've used a lot of those design decisions in new anti ballistic systems that they have been testing recently. At least his work was not in vain.
Well sorry to tell you but your professor is kinda wrong near the end of the ussr they designed a lot of interesting and really good machines, like the buran space shuttle, the an225, the object 195, testing and succesfuly integrating 152mm gun on their existing tanks and so on the problem is that russia is not the ussr it doesnt have the same budget and recources
To be fair, the guest talked about what he knows. I don't think anyone outside of the Russian armor industry knows whether it is falling behind. Next time, maybe Bernhard could ask him about his field of expertise, impact dynamics.
I don't mean that I didn't enjoy it, I am just suggesting this may want to be retitled as a talk on university culture and how it affects military technology. This was a very eye opening lecture.
@@Lexoka One of Bernhard's other guests, a Ukrainian tank officer said that it was not. They tend to have better insights into Russia than we do thanks to their ability to speak the language.
@@Lexoka The design of most Russian armour (all T-72 and T-80 variants, plus their ERA) is not even secret, they're pretty simple layered armour designs (and fairly effective as well). Only T-90M and T-14 have designs not publicly known, as far as I know, so he could have definitely talked about it.
In my opinion Soviet/Russian tank design fell behind with the introduction of the M-1, Leopard II and Challenger. Used to know a guy that was a veteran of M-1's at the end of the Cold War. He used to go on and on about how bad the Soviet tanks across the line where compared to his M-1. I finally got him to stop by asking him 3 questions; How much did his M-1 weigh combat loaded rounded off? About 74 tons. How much did a T-72 of the day weigh combat loaded rounded off? About 44 tons. Can you do an tank with M-1 levels of protection, firepower and crew survival on 44 tons? No. He never brought it up again at least with me. The point is any design is a trade off.
Well i remember i saw M1 fanboys flame the armata 14's turrent. Sort of you cant shoot if the controll system is damaged (like no manual system). And then abram X announced the same design lul.
Well of course most Soviet tanks are going to be bad compared to an M1, it’s a full generation or more ahead of virtually all of them! Anyhow, footage from around the world shows that nothing much has changed; any tank can be killed.
@@Mortablunt yeah but the next question is do you need a javelin or is a rpg good for it? A tank may not be invincible but ffs atleast make sure a damn rpg can’t just take it out
If we assess Russian tank losses according to the data base available on Oryx under the title: "Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine" we find a few trends in the loss pattern of Russian tanks: 1) T72s comprise the largest percentage of the total Russian tank losses at 67%, with the T80 being second most common at 24%. T62, T64 & T90 losses are relatively negligible. In the case of these latter three models, it's probable that the low percentage of T62 & T64 is simply due to the small numbers deployed in combat. The few T90 losses is likely a result of better survivability and possibly low numbers in action. 2) A high percentage of Russian tanks - 47.5% - are simply abandoned and captured by Ukrainian forces. This suggests Russians maintain their tanks poorly, have inadequate recovery equipment and/or lack proper maintenance units. Furthermore, it may indicate low crew morale and training. In which case, crews simply abandon their vehicles when under heavy fire (but this last point is speculation). 3) With the exception of the T62, for each generation of newer Russian tank model, the number of destroyed vehicles decreases as a percentage of the total vehicles lost of that model. The greatest decrease being between the T64 and the T72, with 78% destroyed versus 56% destroyed as a percent of their model's total loss respectively. The percent drops about 10% thereafter for each successive model (ie T80, T90). The T90 possess the lowest destruction rate at 30% of the model's total losses. Of the 648 identified Russian tanks destroyed so far, only nine are T90s. This decrease in the destruction rate as a percentage of total losses per model probably indicates better survivability for each newer generation of Russian tank. 4) An additional 157 unidentified Russian tanks were lost during combat. Of this total, 145 were destroyed while 12 were abandoned. The high ratio of destroyed to abandoned tanks in this category suggests these vehicles are "total write offs" or completely annihilated and, consequently, difficult to identify. 5) Of the 1,233 Russian tanks lost 438 (35%) possessed only Soviet era upgrades, including nearly all T62s and about 400 T72s. Russian Tank Loss Data Key: D = destroyed C = captured/abandoned/damaged (L) = total lost * unknown type T62m 3D, 31C (34 L) T62mv 3D, 3C (6 L) T62 series = 6D, 34C (40L) = 15%D vs 85%C T64a 2D (2 L) T63bv 31D, 9C (40 L) T64 series = 33D, 9C (42 L) = 78%D vs 22%C T72a 17D, 17C (34L) T72av 5D, 4C (9L) T72b 124D, 85C (209 L) T72b obr.89 40D, 35C (75 L) T72ba 4D, 12C (16 L) T72b3 123 D, 97C (220 L) T72b Obr.14 1D, 1C (2 L) T72b Obr.16 79D, 95C (174 L) T72* 68D, 22 C (90 L) T72 series = 461D, 364C (825 L) = 56%D vs 44%C T80bv 75D, 72C (147 L) T80bvk 1C, (1 L) T80u 37D, 49C (86 L) T80uk 3C (3L) T80um2 1D (1L) T80bvm 22D, 32C (54L) T80* 3D, 3C (6 L) T80 series = 138D, 160C (298 L) = 46%D vs 54%C T90a 8D, 18C (26 L) T90m 1D, 3C (4 L) T90 series = 9D, 21C (30 L) = 30%D vs 70%C Total losses T62, T64, T72, T80, T90 = 1,233 Total destroyed T62, T64, T72, T80, T90 = 648 ~ 52.5% Total captured/abandoned/damaged T62...T90 = 586 ~ 47.5% ~ Loss per model as a percent of overall total T62 = 3% T64 = 3% T72 = 67% T80 = 24% T90 = 2%
I would add one caveat to these figures. These numbers represent only those tanks that have been photographed and geolocated, so it is very likely this understates Russian tank losses. Destroyed tanks that are in Russian territory, tanks that have been lost due to poor maintenance or an inability to repair them, or tanks that have not been photographed and geolocated won't be included in this list. However, that said, Oryx is a great database.
@@nicholasconder4703 Yes, there are certainly more Russian tanks lost than listed on the Orxy site for the reasons you mention. Conversely, considering that both combatants use the same equipment (more or less), it's also quite possible many of the Russian tank losses listed on the Oryx site are actually Ukrainian. Certainly this would be true for the 157 unidentified Russian tanks. Furthermore, I've gone through Oryx's photographic documentation and found that a large percentage of destroyed tanks attributed to Russian losses posses no markings or any characteristic that would allow identification to either side. I've e-mailed the sites author regarding methods for national verification, but never received an answer. So I think this aspect of the kill list should also be kept in mind.
@@nicholasconder4703 Oryx, when audited, looked like he was overestimating losses by a factor of 1.5-2.5x >photographed and geolocated Lolwhat. Oryx doesn't care about geolocation at all. It's only unique photographs.
The T-14 Armata comes up a lot but that project was dead in the water the moment sanctions kicked in, and not just the 2022 sanctions but the 2014 sanctions. Their high tech industries, especially their armaments, are so reliant on external products (like most nations without their own ultramodern tech development and manufacturing base) it literally cannot catch up because it doesn't have parts available. With what they have available, things are just too advanced for them to be able to rely on internal development only.
Tom Clancy said 30 years ago that every time the ruuians come out with a new piece of equipment the west would shake with fear and then come out with there own new equipment to counter the Russian/soviet equipment. 10 years later the west would get ahold of one of those pieces of equipment they feared and find out it's garbage.
T72 is practically 1960ties design (it was designed as cheaper and more reliable version of T64).. while current western tanks are designed in late 1970ties.. practically nobody designed new tank since... they all use same tank.. At least Abrams took crew safety further with all ammo in blow-out panels, but other western tanks dont have such protection for all stored ammo (Leopard 2)... frankly, this whole video told practically nothing about russian armor design, and why it failed..
I must be the only person outside of Russia to think that by and large Soviet design ethos has been vindicated. That Soviet equipment on both sides has preformed really well.
Having been following both Russian and Western Armor developments over the years, I don't really see evidence of the Russians falling behind in the theoretical and design sense. But in terms of getting funds to fully develop new vehicles and tech, as well as the industrial and advanced tech they definitely struggle. Leading to old tech just being modernized and soldiering on in leu of other newer options. Interesting discussion Bernhard.
I find kind of funny how people like to draw conclusions that don't conclude nothing, is not like the Abrams, Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2 aren't 80's tanks either, most of what NATO use is as old as Russian stuff, thing is that Russia is in a regular war, NATO isn't, and we can't say if the results wouldn't be that different.
@@user-gn6bn3ow8u and we haven't seen Israeli APS against APS defeating RPGs. It is easy to be superior with new tech against older tech but for some people that is huge revelation. And obsession with front of a turret, while ignoring that Javelins destroyed Russian tanks from above, same place where NATO and Russian thanks have comparable, that is nonexistent armor. Somehow nobody dared to show video of NATO tank without crew (dummies from ballistic gel would be great) surviving hit by Javelin and dummies being lightly wounded in worst case thanks to famous M1 blast doors. When Saudis lost M1A1, "it was older, export model", same excused which was mocked for Iraqi T-72.
A really nice video, but it misses its title a little in my opinion, focusing mostly on the connection between universities and the defence sector (maybe a different title may have served it better). Also, I guess you had to cut the video shorter for time, but some of the points didn't really lead anywhere in my opinion, and those could have freed up a little space. Don't take this as talking bad about the video, just some potential improvements
In 1986 the Soviet education collapsed, and Russia has never recovered. They have some spectacularly talented people, but they tend to leave because there’s nowhere for them, and everyone else has subpar skills. You see it in every sector of the Russian economy. It’s why they’re buying drones with simple two stroke engines and no real avionics from Iran.
The T-14 is an extremely well thought out design solution to modern threats to tanks and has much improved crew survivability. The problem though isn't the concept and the design, it's that the actual product appears to be a complete lemon.
"The T-14 is an extremely well thought out design solution to modern threats to tanks and has much improved crew survivability. ", since you know very little about it, there is no way you can be sure of that. You only have the Russian propaganda machine to base that upon.
One thing to note that, at least here in the United States, there is increasing push back against university systems because those systems no longer function like 'education' institutions, but rather corporations. Many universities in the US, especially private ones, their 'professors' are actually their product researchers/corporate workforce. And they often take the best of their students to then work on essentially private research topics that the university owns the intellectual property rights to. Here in Atlanta GA, there's a university called Emory University, private, expensive, and they now control/own/run so many hospitals and health facilities in Atlanta, that they account for about seventy percent of all high teir medical services and their 'university' now literally has a CEO to run the 'business' side of things. Some are pushing back about such practices because universities, even private ones, get a ton of grant money from the government, that private companies do not.
Yeah, there are various problems with Western universities as well. The overall question is also how the "university sector" might transform, since in terms of "providing information" a lot of the institutions etc. are not really necessary anymore, even for research in some areas the question about the necessity of a "local hub" etc. is also debatable.
Excellent discussion. Thank you Bernhard and Paul. Some interesting points raised about various influences on academic research, dissemination thereof and practical application of such research. You need to understand the processes in order to obtain practical value from the monies invested in academia.
One of the biggest massive failures of Russia was not creating a semiconductor industry after the fall of the cold war. Russia has to rely on TSMC in Taiwan for their semiconductors that go in their military vehicles and missiles. Now that Taiwan stopped sending them chips they are in trouble. Russia should have spent the money in the late early 2000s to try and get as much technology from the west. maybe open a few fabs with older nodes like 90nm and 65nm.
This missed the mark hard. Most problems we face, across the board, are political, not academic. Russia during the Soviet era, for all its problems, had a guiding ideological framework that acted as a motivator for specific policies as innovation. Yes, they were authoritarian and had plenty of corruption, but a great many of them saw themselves as building an alternate political project and wanted to innovate not only as a way to justify the actions of the USSR, but political leadership was incentivized to pursue it as a means of both soft power in international relations but also survival. Today Russia has retained the authoritarian nature of the USSR, but lost the social safety net that made life more tolerable there, and embraced a mafia like system of governance where corruption runs completely rampant as the line between government and "private" industry is non existent. Most educated Russians leave for better opportunities elsewhere. And the main job of the military has really been to keep the civilian population in line, which doesn't take much. When interacting with someone like putin, giving bad news can be dangerous at the best of times. So Putin, whether he intended this or not, surrounded himself with "YES" men. Being around people like this will warp anybodies perception of what is going on. On top of that military brass have been caught selling basic provisions online to make extra money (to say nothing of the skimming that bureaucrats likely do). Then, Russia maintains this vast military, which is largely a relic of the USSR. She has a nuclear force nearly as large as the USA (albeit with a greater emphasis on tactical, rather than strategic arms) a massive army, navy, and air force, with 1/10th the GDP of the USA (about 1/5th accounting for population). They want the numbers in order to be taken seriously, but maintaining such a vast arsenal would be a financial challenge for a politically healthy state. With such endemic corruption and political ass covering to avoid passing off the powers that be it's likely just lie piled upon lie. Soldiers never received training, but politicians and brass likely insisted they did, and hardwares performance was likely both greatly exaggerated, and often not fielded because of people skimming off the top. Russia's problem overwhelmingly political, the idea that this is a matter of government vs private labs is absurd.
I might be missing something, but reading the headline I expected Russian armor design to be the topic. Now, I do appreciate this channel, but honestly, there wasn't too much substance in this video. I'm pussled what came out of this clip. Except the professor in a tedious and tiringly diplomatic fashion told some aneqdote implying that Russia doesn't encourage or produce innovative, scientific research in the field. It took 13,5 minutes to convey this obvious message. *What a nothingburger.* Sigh...
i think Russia makes weapons 'good enough' to do the job. it is not flashy like western weapons (and the west just got their asses handed to them by the Taliban, let's not forget that)
@@JK-dv3qe The west didn't get their asses headed to them by the taliban whatsoever. The US and our allies horrendously screwed up the withdrawal and then some other non western forces got wrecked but western forces were not beaten in any form.
I definitely dispute that. We have no idea whether the design is effective or not. Given the cost of them and the performance of russias other tanks on the battlefield, I’d say it’s a very high risk purchase. If I were a tank buyer I would buy something battle proven like challenger 2. Actually I’d probably go for challenger 3 for the smoothbore gun and the active defence systems. Dorchester armour is by far the best performing armour to date. I’d want my crews to survive because hood tankers take years to train
They're death traps. An Abrams exploded recently during training. Magazine explosion. Everyone in the tank survived. Meanwhile pretty much ever Soviet/Russia tank post T64 are death traps with ammo storage under the crew as the crew sits in a Rotating Basket. If the ammo cooks off which it often does, the turret and almost the entire crew pop like a Pringle Lid, killing the entire crew. There is literally nonthing good about such a design. The War in Ukraine, Russian turret popping has pretty much become a meme now, despitw the issue being a serious mark of criticism for well over a generation. It has taken a Social Media dominated Conflict to make it public knowledge. Many have also pointed out Russia's newest designs look like T72s with extra panels welded onto the turrets/hulls. Which makes many question whether say the T-14 is really any better than a modernized T80 or T90. T-14 may very well be just a T90 with a new skin in short.
@@dimarusanov6107 send some t14’s to fight with it and let’s see shall we. It’s the only tank in the world today that has never been knocked out in battle. We can’t say that about anything russian now can we ? Or American for that matter oh not German either.
@@UlsterScott lmao has t14 ever been in a battle? It’s like saying one of Chinese or Middle Eastern low production Vaporware fighter jets are amazing because they haven’t crashed. Yeah it’s easy not to crash when you can barely build any and barely fly those you build. T15 was meant to have thousands of units finished years ago. No sign of them. The project has basically been scrapped.
The adaptation of tanks against the drone-threat is IMO the biggest step for coventional warfare on the ground - and Russia is struggeling to take it. A flawed tank can perform well in an otherwise working combined warfare backing them up. Best example is the last (not the recent) fighting in the Karabach-region, when the Armenian forces were beaten more or less by drones alone.
@@IvanTre I remember both screaming a lot in the recent months. And even with the usage of drones - their implementation to this point is cumbersome and far from ideal. Especially tanks should be able to work with their own designated drones. Idk if T14 could, but T90 and older can't. IMO the sightings of UFOs is the precursor to a completely different warfare, when swarms of AI driven drones with stupidly fast flight maneuvers will beat every conventional army down in a matter of minutes - most likely by the usage of chemical weapons.
@@dointh4198 Russians haven't been complaining much really. Meanwhile UA got EU to hypocritically sanction Iran for the drones sold to Russia when half of EU is sending weapons to UA...
Something to remember, the research in the 70's and 80's was the Soviet Union, not Russia, and Ukraine featured heavily in that. Russia has long since cut themselves off from that.
Slight criticism: Try stay on the topic. But it is a good video. For Russia funding was always lacking and problems in competition, since a lot of institutions and companies were merged to avoid bankruptcy and of course a lot of their USSR potential ended up outside Russia. Ukraine was doing work on Diesel Powered Tanks for example. And while sadly T-84 has a lot of problems, when it worked it was an amazing tank. And retirement (partial) of T-80 as a development platform, as opposed to T-72, which was heavily changed to T-90 ended up with more Quantity rather than Quality production. Since a lot of work on T-90 was also applicable to T-72's. And while it is a good platform, I do have a feeling (and it's just my feeling, I might be completely wrong) that T-80 was more of the higher cost but higher quality Tank. Though this wouldn't have helped Russia since their training is mediocre (depending on the unit, but look at 1st GTA performance) and half-measures that didn't allow conscripts to take part in the "Special Military Operation" only made those units less valuable. I bring up 1st GTA, since at least 4th GTD within it was armed with T-80 variants. And those that were captured are highly praised by Ukrainians. And it will be tough to replace them for Russia, even if they have enough tankers with decent training.
Even during the Cold War--after the fielding of the M1 and M2 series into the US Army, we were positive we had absolute superiority over Soviet armor both wrt equipment and tactical approach. That superiority has only increased since then.
I agree but disagree, with the Ukraine conflict going on i think the Russians will use the experience to update their t-14 tank to match the US not to mention their crews will have experience on tank v tank combat. The last time the US had a tank battle was back in 1991 (I think)
@@williejohnson1732 and that was against second-rate opponent. USA has never fought a near-peer adversary war since WWII. they got defeated by the Taliban just recently
@@JK-dv3qe No they didn't. The US had already withdrawn their combat troops nearly a year prior. Claiming that the US was "defeated" because they had a token garrison force in an area is pretty disingenuous. Strictly speaking, no "major power" has fought a "near-peer adversary" since WW2.
When the M1 was first fielded, it would have struggled against the T-72b 1989 variant. The m829 and m829a1 would have struggled to get through the kontakt-5 common on many Soviet tanks at the time, but western tanks generally had better optics, and farther effective ranges. But when compared to the T-80U, that gap closes significantly, as the T-80U had a better fire control system and better optics when compared to the T-72b.
It seems to me that what reputation Soviet armor enjoyed during the Cold War came about largely as a result of World War II and the performance of the venerable T-34. But also making an impression at the time was the advent of a Russian auto-loader, which, in turn, allowed for a reduction in tank crew size from four to three. That, in turn, allowed the Russians to reduce the size of their tanks generally, thereby making them a smaller target for an enemy to shoot at. Even so, it was the sheer number of Soviet tanks that was especially concerning back then--quantity rather than quality, as other commenters have pointed out.
I would disagree. T-80 was a great tank that was really powerful for it's times. It's rather that Russia chose to more heavily modernize and work on T-72's derivatives such as T-90 (I'm not saying that T-90 is just modernized T-72, but idea behind the platform and some parts are the same, at least in first models of T-90). That gave them a lot of quantity, but at a loss of quality.
The T-34 was a similar "quantity over quality". But again, you're building something that is meant to go into a hostile environment. The Russian mentality seems to be more "We know this is going to get destroyed, so how quickly and economically can we replace this". I believe it was this very channel that pointed out that some components on the T-34 were only designed to last slightly longer than the tank's typical battlefield lifespan. WW2 battles (and by exntension the theorized Cold War battles in Europe) involved large numbers of soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc. Due to a higher amount of danger being thrown about in a relatively small area, the lifespan of pretty much anything in the theorized Fulda Gap battles would logically be very short. You can see related comments on other videos, see the recent AbramsX and StrikerX videos put out recently by General Dynamics. They go something like "That's a really expensive tank that can get blown up by a much cheaper man-portable anti-tank missle". In short, all the quality in the world is meaningless if the opponent can employ large numbers of cheap and effective countermeasures. Despite this, is all ultimately comes down to the actual tactical employment of these things. We see Russian tanks being destroyed because they lack infantry support, which is a concept that should not be unknown to the Russian military. It tells me that Russian leadership, even at the company level, is either entirely untrained on the matter, doesn't care, both, or they're not actually trying to simply destroy Ukraine like many in "the West" like to think. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen restrictive rules of enagement hamper military operations and cause unnecessary/avoidable casualties and material losses.
T-34? you mean how many features of the T-34 that it gets praise for in WW2 were abandoned and never used again in Russian tank design, such as its suspension, side sloped armor, etc. T-34 was a mass-produced "good enough" but otherwise garbage tank that did what it needed to do (mass production and take casualties) and nothing more .
@@jannegrey593 Was the T-80 a great tank? I’m not so sure that this point is well established. I certainly don’t think the type has a lot of combat experience to back up the claim. From what I’ve read, the T-80 was supposed to be the successor to the T-72 but didn't quite work out as planned. For this reason, among others, most of the tanks the Russian Army has acquired in the last two decades have actually been refurbished and upgraded T-72B3s.
@@ericmkendall1 The t80 has an unfairly bad reputation. They used it wrong and didnt kit it out for urban warfare in its debut in chechnya. From that, its reputation was dead, especially when it already needed a good rep to overcome the concerns about its turbine engine. Now its also a bit outdated compared to the at weapons its facing.
As a Canadian Russian immigrant, having been trained in science originally, I would like to point out that Russian scientists and engineers have a unanimous outlook about the deplorable state of Russian science and industry in general. However, that fact should not be equaled to the state of developing countries, even if the real condition of the industry is sometimes comparable. Russian people's investments in the cultural and educational level in the time of the Soviet Union were so high that it still continues to pay off. In this aspect, Russi is still on par with any Western European country. Especially if we consider the general decline of those countries in the same matter for the general population. That means, that shall the government's economic (very third world) policy change and new perspectives for industry development open, the CULTURAL potential is still there. Hardware and software can be brought and training achieved, but if there is no culture for that, NOTHING will work. And we have seen numerous examples of such failures around the world. That means that there is potential to respond to the new challenges first of all on people's level. And we already see it in the current war. On the opposite side -- however much money does the USA dump into the military industry, culturally, as the people, Americans are still dwarfs to compare with their British ancestors, which is compensated only by the continuous influx of immigrants and enormous economic power. Precisely because they never understood the paramount importance of the culture of people, without which there is no base for the culture of science and engineering.
History: the study and reporting on what has already happened, which many of us find interesting, but rarely improves our lives except as it can give us something interesting to talk about. Modern Sciences: the study and reporting of the new, unknown and unexplained phenomena, which is used to improve our lives now and into the future. Both are needed, but one is far more important for our continued existense.
Judging by the new prototype Abrams X which uses many of the features the T14 Armata already has like a remote turret I would say the Russians are not falling behind they just don’t have the capacity to build enough of them.
or the will, since they didn't tried to start any of the smaller stuff like the APC (BTR-82 is not their best design), but this would be because of the war.
Yeah, and perhaps they aren’t using them properly. Modern warfare demands a combined arms approach. Homogenous formations will get slaughtered no matter how magnificent their engineering might be.
@@bathhatingcat8626 you are wrong here, Russian formations seens to be too diverse to their own good from what I know. "BTG" would be a combined arms Battalion, which means they have little infantry, too much tanks, aka too diverse.
jesse terrell - EXACTLY!!! How can Russian tanks tech be 'falling behind' when the #1 military in the world (US) is now going in the direction of Armata? ☮
@@McRocket copying what? These concepts have been around for decades, for example the abrams ttb implemented a crewless turret and an autoloader. Ofc any modern crewless turret design will be compared to armata.
Russian armor design is also being held back by Russian engine design. Heavy, fuel inefficient and unreliable the extra weight could be used for more useful features
I think it’s disingenuous to a degree to claim that the Russians are still using Cold War tanks. Technically the Abrams is a Cold War tank. Thus how are the T-72B3 or B3M or T-80BVM any different from the most modern M1A2 SEP variant? All these tanks are modernizations of their older Cold War versions. To top it off, these 3 Russian tank models are the tanks the Russians are primarily using during this ongoing war. They only started using much older tanks because they were depleting their stocks of more modern vehicles.
One thing that is telling against the Russian tanks is their improper usage by the Russian Army. Most videos we see indicate the Russians are not using combined arms warfare, and their infantry are poorly trained and do not support their tanks properly. I would add, however, that there are definite design flaws in the Russian tanks that lead to unnecessary deaths of the crews.
I don't remember exactly where I heard it but the Russian economy is reportedly the equivalent of NY State. Russia is trying to maintain superpower status with the U.S. and China with a economy a fraction of those two entities. So it should come as no surprise in hindsight that the Russian military was in a state of decay. At least in some aspects. They're seemingly full speed ahead with hypersonic development and some other strategic assets but it seems their conventional forces may have suffered. At least to this casual observer it seems that way. I may be missing important context.
That number is usually without considering PPP, they go from the 9th strongest economy to the 6th. Even than, Russia and other countries can purchase things that a single state cannot, so comparing economies like that doesn't work out to well.
The US had Hypersonic cruise missiles in the 60s. The most recent hypersonic missile we built I can name is the LOSAT from the 90s, which is an ATGM. They spend a fraction of the US strategic missile budget on an arsenal that is at least on paper much larger then the US one. I am very skeptical that they've really upgraded their nuclear arsenal, and I have the suspicion that most of their advanced stuff, like the Su-57 and like the T-14, exist only in token numbers, and that the majority of the arsenal is stuff from the 80s and 90s.
@@barrag3463 you're correct that the most modern equipment only exists in token numbers, but this isn't that relevant to the purchasing power argument. Those are certainly expensive systems. But upgraded Soviet built tanks are not. They cost a fraction, as does their manpower, both in their military and their factories. And they buy energy at even lower rates to pre-sanctions Germany. Further; their economy isn't trying to do as many things as Western ones are. For instance, something like 25% of US expenditure is on personal transportation. Another almost 20% on again for emphasis PERSONAL health care costs, which in part is due to the effects of everyone driving and nobody walking or catching public transport. Imagine if in your calculation of GDP you factored in these enormous wastes into the US calculation, compared to Russia, which has far more subways, buses, trams etc. which are all drastically more efficient from a cost (GDP) perspective, but achieve the same outcome; workforce mobility.
Russia has a lower GDP than Italy, but what makes Russia’s performance even worse is that it’s output is mostly commodities and the other sectors are very week compared to countries with similar GDP’s.
>I don't remember exactly where I heard it but the Russian economy is reportedly the equivalent of NY State. 1) NY State has a full production cycle of space rockets? 2) NY State has a full production cycle of nuclear ships and warships? 3)NY State has a full production cycle of development and production Fifth-generation fighter? 4) NY State produce 90% of all steel produced in the USA? 5) NY State produces as much aluminum as the USA+Canada? If the answer is yes, then of course your statement is correct. I can extend the list, but honestly, I'm just too lazy.
Personally I don't think the big problem is Russian armor design lagging behind the west, although it very well could be in at least some aspects, the problem is that their ability to actually produce AFVs has fallen well behind their design ambitions. It's way easier to have an ambitious modern design, and by all accounts the T-14 is just that, than it is to tool up a factory to build it, after all, hence why they only have a handful of prototypes/LRIPs of it that probably don't even have fully functional electronics suites, and Russia's lacking armor infrastructure seems to extend well beyond the tank factories themselves.
I think one thing a few commenters are missing in the context of 'tooling up' is economic priorities. Say what you will about the decision making processes in Moscow, and who is or isn't in charge of / profits from their various sectors, there are two very key sectors they were able to "tool up" in the last 20 years. Agriculture and energy. I'd argue that without those, their economy would be an absolute basket case, yet instead it seems to have been at least somewhat resilient to Western sanctions. I'd posit that without these sectors bringing in foreign capital they wouldn't have any capacity at all to bring in tooling for their arms industry. So the point is kind of moot anyway.
@@jamesrowlands8971 depending so heavily on resource extraction is is the sign of Russia’s backwards slide. You’re right, being a major producer of oil and exporter of food has left them stranded but alive indefinitely.
They're using larger calibers, autoloader and ERA. The newest in development western tanks...use larger calibers, autoloaders and optionally ERA. They also where the first with unmanned turrets? Weird to argue they're falling behind.
Love this channel but this one was waaaay off point. From the start I thought it was a weird choice of a guest expert on a topic of Russian tank design and I was right - the discussion had nothing in common with the topic of a video, not even close. What adds more insult to injury - it was an interesting discussion indeed, but not what it says on the label of this video. Hate to do it, but it is a thumbs down on this video, sorry.
Just regarding the headline question, the short answer is: Somewhat ! But the real problem is the development/production quality and ability. (Personally I do not regard it as a problem 🙂 )
Always appreciate the content here. This was a stimulating discussion. However, discussing Russian armour design without referencing a single model or single competing model seems a bit odd. Perhaps this video would have been better titled, "Russian vs Western Research Models". This is a humble suggestion, obviously I greatly value the content created here and the time and insights of the contributor.
I don’t think anyone will dispute Russian ERA tech is leagues ahead of most of NATO. But they don’t field much of it. Their active protection systems are pretty effective. None have them have deployed at scale. Their production and procurement just isn’t there.
@@voidtempering8700 There are hundreds of Russian tanks with only Kontakt 1 from Soviet times. There are some that don't even have that. There are also the cases of empty ERA boxes and bags which is still very common. Some were sold on the black market, others were never replaced after being depleted. Their tank fleet is nowhere near full deployment of even Kontakt 5.
@@yoloman3607 Not full deployment, because not all T-72s can equip Kontakt-5, but the majority of T-72b3s seen, the tank which has Kontakt-5, has had it equipped on Ukraine.
@@voidtempering8700 Nearly any soviet tank can equip Kontakt ERA, it isn't hard at all to install. It's just they don't have enough for all their tanks.
The content of this video is interesting if you're insterested in the dynamics of competitive capitalism vs monolithic authoritarianism and how it might explain Rsssian innovativeness falling behind, but that's not the title of this video or how the ciscussion supposedly started.
Professor Hazell's insights are probably correct but the question of "Russian Armor Design" was not covered. Let me do so. 3000 Russian MBTs have been blown to bits in Ukraine. Uralvagonzavod, Russia's largest tank plant, is still building T-72B3s. T-90 tanks were being built on the same production line and supposedly are better in terms of protection. Well a good design team could throw an active protection on a T-90M and have something adequate 9 months into a war. Seriously any 9 year old boy could have slapped APS on a T-90M one week into this war. Where are the Russian Designers? Maybe they left Russia to escape being mobilized? WTF??????
Russian armor has always been fatally flawed in that they are developed by engineers who don't understand how tanks are fought. Emphasis on small size over fight ability is simply idiotic
I don't think Russian armour 'design' is so much at fault. The concept of the T14 Armata is very sound along with the list of features it is designed around. The problem seems to be more in terms of Russian financial and manufacturing capabilities. On paper the Armata should have been the design on which many existing Russian military vehicles would have been based on. In reality the Russians have only been able to manufacture a relative few of the full MBT version in the years since its announcement. This has been down to it being difficult to produce (and therefore costly) as well as being too expensive for the current Russian economy to support in terms of a wide mobilisation. Derivative vehicles would have the same kind of issues which is most likely why nobody has seen any of them outside of prototypes. There is also a skewed viewpoint due to how the Russian armed forces have performed in Ukraine. Issues from the lack of basic equipment (with troops being encouraged to buy their own where possible), through to a lack of training, poor logistics, etcetera tend to paint Russian equipment as being of poor quality. Really it comes down to that it is being used (and oftain maintained) poorly which kind of points to the fact that the Russian army has a lot of more fundemental issues to fix than re-designing its equipment.
I think academics should not be commenting of practical engineering and design. Other than giving design engineers the basic tool they need to live in the real world. There are those who do and then there are those who cannot do, so they teach.
I thought the video was great. However, the title is rather misleading. I was expecting a discussion of armour tech with plenty of analysis and at least some data. The video ended up being mostly on the different academic environments in the east and west, with some speculation but very little data to back anything up. It was still interesting but not really what I came to the video for.
Argument about universities doesn't hold water in the context of cold war period. Soviet University system was even less competitive and they achieved results in government lab. It's just a matter of resources, which dwindled after Soviet collapse.
They are clearly far behind the West and have been since thermal sights became common on NATO tanks in the mid to late 80s. There is also no question that the most common modern NATO tanks like the Leopard 2A5 (and later) and the M1A2 would crush the T-72B3/B3M (not least due to the far superior situational awareness they have due to their command thermal sights, which the T-72B3/B3M lacks).
RedEffects does a video in which he presents and improved Russian tank that uses a turret bustle for ammunition storage with blow out panels and a cassette type auto loader. It was found that the tank actually also had a considerably lower profile since the crew were no longer on top of the ammunition. (as well as safety) -The other problem with Russian tanks is the poor elevation and depression (11 and -5) compared to western tanks (20 an -10) that makes them unsuitable for mountains and urban fighting. This could be dealt with in part by adjustable hydropneumatic suspension.
@@williamzk9083 Good points. A lot of people overlook elevation of main weapon systems. The low profile of Russian armor is what limits the elevation range . How does one calculate the trade off? Open terrain you want a lower profile. Elevation is not usually an issue. Urban combat, you want elevation of the main gun to better be able to support and protect yourself. It is all relative to the situation and the Tank Commander has to decide how to manage the advantage and limits of his track. I think urban warfare and the challenges and benefits of close combat infantry support is why the T-15 was built. It has the elevation and rapid rate of heavy fire need for the direct up close support of infantry in an Urban combat settings. Twin grenade launchers on some, everyone protected in a compartment in the hull. Does anyone in NATO have anything like it? Not that I have seem. IMHO
"is Russian armor falling behind"? Of course, just look how obsolete their tanks are, they are just appearance and the T-14 that is already supposed "combat ready" can barely be being seen in parades
Turns out having poorly led tightly packed tanks with crews sitting on top of loaded with HE shells carousels 🎠 on a battlefield filled with top down attack weapons is a receipt for disaster.
It would be better if some universities avoided the soft faculties that create student radicalism and activism for the sake of personal significance. It's such a waste of time.
This professor should speak without worrying about offending anyone 🙄 He speaks on this subject like he's walking on egg shells. It's weird! What happened with the subject on Russian armor???? You should hit up Chris Cappy from the Task and Purpose channel.
The Soviet era and Russian weapons always were behind the west. Mechanically they were relatively good but they were so far behind the west in electrical engineering they looked like something from the second world war or in the eighties from the sixties. That is why they had the overwhelming force tactics.
It is not true. When the T-64B appeared, it was in many ways superior to NATO tanks, even in the fire control system. As always, propaganda is everywhere, even in the West. I would like to see NATO vehicles of the 3rd generation in a real battle, fighting against the Arabs with the help of the Air Force does not count. Of the third generation vehicles, only Soviet/Russian tanks are fighting all over the world.
@@dungeonmaster132 read about the Arab Israeli wars you uneducated troll. You might actually learn a thing or two Slightly upgraded Sherman's destroyed the T-55, the T-64 like the T-14 just got a lot of overrated press after the first one was researched by NATO it turned out to be crappy optics and suffering from substandard components like all Soviet Russian equipment. And still all have non functional and technically inferior electronics.
@@jacksonteller1337 Only you are not educated here. I would read about the 1A33 system, which stood on the T-64B and T-80B, at one time it was a breakthrough, there are whole articles on this topic. It was better than the Leopard and the M-60, I'm not talking about the Chieftain at all. And what does Sherman and T-55 have to do with it?In Iraq, as far as I remember, the T-55 knocked out the Challenger 2 through the lower part and what? The late Kharkov and Tagil experimental machines had a digital automated fire control system, if not for the collapse of the USSR, it would have equaled the West in this direction, after all, they could make computers for spacecraft.
@@jacksonteller1337 Yeah, I'm amazed at the rottenness of our media. When a correspondent on the air says something inconvenient from the front line, then they abruptly turn him off and say that the connection has disappeared, this has been observed for the last 2 weeks, but of course the Russians are evil. Read about the run-in of captured NATO tanks at the Kubinka training ground in the USSR. You will see how disappointed the designers of the USSR were in this technique, especially in the British one.
A front line MBT needs several things that Russian tanks (except certain variants of the T-90 & T-14) lack (3rd gen independent sights for commander & gunner, fire on the move capability, decent reverse speed, remote ammo. storage) most importantly these days is an active protection system. Also will be important how Russia circumvents current embargo to gets the high tech. technology needed for their most advanced weapon systems.
"Also will be important how Russia circumvents current embargo to gets the high tech. technology needed for their most advanced weapon systems." They BUILD THEM THEMSELVES. As you would know if you had the slightest knowledge of the matter. Their military has been 100% selfsufficient since 2018 when their new chipfab outside of Moscow went into massproduction. Funny how people manage to selectively forget that Russia is one of 3 nations fully capable of making their own chipfabs in the world, along with Holland and just recently, China. "most importantly these days is an active protection system." You mean like western tanks do not have? "(3rd gen independent sights for commander & gunner, fire on the move capability" Uh-huh... Did you completely ignore the upgrade Russia has been doing to replace all foreignmade electronics since 2011? Not that Russian tanks didn't already have that ability, but you seem to have chosen to miss that. "decent reverse speed, remote ammo. storage" If you want decent reverse speed, your choice is the Strv-103. Oh wait, no longer in service, oops. And remote ammostorage? Yeah, that's nice, but it's not standard because it is not automatically superior outside of your mind.
@@DIREWOLFx75 True to an extent. Bottom line much of the Russia equipment captured or destroyed in the Ukrainian conflict contains Western tech.. The use of S-300's as SSM's (not in intended SAM role) and indiscriminate use of Iranian kamikaze drones hints of desperation. Also important to note 100's of thousands of the best & brightest are leaving the country and those who can't get out are being drafted. Meaning a distinct loss of man/brainpower to build high-tech. weapons.
I look at Russian armor design the same way I look at Chinese RC cars. You're buying a base to build from, but dear god don't trust the stock configuration. It will not last. It will do "just good enough" for a while, but any sort of yeehaw or extreme demands are going to murder it... as will time. The idea is to get it and just ground up refit, and that seems to be what a lot of nations end up doing. They've each got their own variant and some of those are quite nice. Maybe that's down to not leaving them abandoned for years at a time with no servicing...
@@jamesrowlands8971 Oh you are paying for quality control to be done when you buy the premium. The bargain branded chinese RC just is... like... "hey it's a solid chance this wont suck" and you go from there. There are some brands made in USA etc but they are somewhat rare and some even do the whole "assembled in" and just sort of hope you'll think the two words mean same thing.
*_I feel like tanks are pretty much like they were back at various phases of WW2:_* -The British tanks are few in number due to peace, they are decent but bloody expensive. -The German tanks are decent but overengineered (Leopard repair and maintenance is brutal as far as I heard, manufacturing takes a long time as well and they are pretty pricey). -US tanks are task-based, engineered to work well with other parts of the army as well as engineered around the crew, not the way around, comfy and gets the job done. -French tanks are generally pretty good, the only way they may fail against its possible foes would be a leadership + morale issue. -Russian tanks are seemingly good on paper but are dog poop due to poor manufacture and/or maintenance, the engineer did not give a damn about the crew either, cramped deathtraps you won't get out of after a hit unless you are extremely lucky and your ammo does not cook off. I do not envy the Ukrainian and Russian dudes who have to man these things! Some things never change, like doctrine and the usual level of corruption of a country.
I think you have a theory there and then you try to bend reality to fit said theory: -WW2 British tank design was dogshit, until basically the Centurion every single tank was years behind any other major country. I do think they got much better in that regard since then. Their tank doctrine was also useless. -The French had some capable, if overcomplicated and unreliable tanks as well as huge numbers of crap, useless ones, and luckily they also got much better. They had almost no concept of using tanks at all, one of the main reasons why these failed. -The main problem of Russia is that they are trying to maintain an army worthy of a world power with an abysmal economy, and then still manage to surprise everyone when they fail at that. Add to this the terrible doctrine, command etc. and you have a failing army that gets beaten by Ukraine. Meanwhile, said Ukrainians manage to use the same weapons (or the often outdated stuff they get) much, much more efficiently. Russia is the one that fell off a cliff with their tanks compared to WW2, not necessarily because of their inherent quality or lack thereof, but rather because they cannot support them at any level. The weakness of the equipment is overemphasized because it is a concrete thing most people can fathom, unlike the 'soft' issues that are far more important. Doctrine does change, luckily, except for those countries that cannot evolve- and then they lose hard against a country that was supposed to be finished the second they rolled over the border.
@@FeherMate You overthink it, I know correlation is not relation and this was simply something silly but you took it way too seriously. Also you never mentioned the German tanks and their problems. Don't be a wehraboo and there's a lot more to this topic. I don't know if this is elitism or gatekeeping, but don't do it, mate!
@@MrPapamaci88 I did not mention it because I agreed with your description of them (individually decent but overengineered seems fair to me). Why would I repeat an argument with which I agree? Throwing around words like "elitism", "wehraboo" or "gatekeeping" without even trying to argue or asking why I wrote what I wrote, while simultaneously saying it was just a silly idea is both pretty confusing and provocative...
Of course, we will forget about the creation of the first tank with multilayer armor in the USSR and the attempt to create super-armored low-power monsters in the USSR in the 50s in order to protect the crew as much as possible.
Soviet tanks were always about quantity. They did not care about the safety of the crew and that leads to different design choices and inferior quality. Besides that, current day innovation is about information technology. Look at how the Soviets developed their IT industry and you have another great reason why their quality is inferior.
This is absolute bullshit. When the west was making tank designs with no armor at all the soviets created the T-64 with the main intent to protect the crew. The reason soviet tanks used a carrousel autoloader was to make the tanks smaller and put the ammunition on the lowest part of the tank wich is the least likely to be hit. The m60 has it's main ammorack in the turret back with no protection at all.
@@phunkracy exactly. There was actually some quite hard science behind the Soviet emphasis on numerical superiority. Localised numerical superiority repeatedly proved the decisive factor in the largest battles of WW2. It's not about having inferior quality. It's about giving your troops the greatest chance to win by being able to bring more weapons to bear on the enemy than the other way around. And it's deliberately misrepresented by their foes for propaganda purposes.
Well the Armata is a peach, isn't it? Had everybody freaking nervous because of the advanced design... but they forgot Russia needs 7 years to design, takes 11 years to build 3 prototypes, takes another 4 years to build a first preproduction model and another 3 years to build another 3 preproduction models, after 7 years the first production model and after 5 years a first batch of five, of which 7 don't have ammunition, of which 4 don't have spare parts, of which 11 don't have electronics, of which 9 don't have a trained crew, of which only one gets fielded in the special military disaster, of which 4 are abandonned, of which 6 are used by the Ukrainians against the Russians. So it is a brilliant design which took a 117 year to field - 37 pieces and deliver 9 to the enemy.
I loved the tall, but i feel that it didn't really touch the matter at hand. Lot of talk about universities and russia's "brain problems", but not much on tank design and development. I feel that this one missed the mark, unfortunately.
He actually illustrated a problem that I don't think he intended to. He's positing the idea that Russian university professors are teaching too much, and that takes time away from potential research. That is how university professors should be. Their purpose is to teach, not research. That's why they're at a university.
Thats not correct. Professors are no Teachers. Beeing a University Professor usually comes with research u have to do. Otherwise they would stagnate on old knowledge. They are expected to create new knowledge and teach new students. Its a balance.
No, they‘re also there to lead groups of researchers to study and develop in the public interest, in contrast to the private sector. They also need to verify other researchers findings by trying to reproduce their experiments.
So many discussions on that topic. Some people are not suited to teaching at all. My supervisor can't explain shit, but he is a brilliant scientist. Some people are great at teaching but they are not creative and concentrated on the field of research to really be brilliant and effective. A great scientist and professor Peter Kapitsa claimed that teaching helps you to learn and improve your professional skills as a scientist. So... who nows what the answer is.
TLDR: America has so much money that they can afford to outsource defense research to universities in other countries. Russia does not have much money. This (money) affects armour development.
If anything I would say they had been falling behind since the end of the Cold War, and have been catching up in recent years with the advent of the T14, and to a lesser extent, the latest T90 variants. Their electronics, particularly sensor and targeting components, remains markedly inferior to Western standards, and this is increasingly more important an aspect than raw firepower and protection
Simple answer, yes it has there is no real argument against it, yes they have made good tanks, but probably not since the late 70’s early 80’s, and yes they made the T-14 but there’s less then 100 models that have been seen. And even their most advanced tanks in Ukraine the T-80, T-80BVM, T-72B3/B3M, T-90A, T-90M have major design flaws that haven’t really been fixed since they’ve been made. I’m not saying western tanks are so much better then Russian, it’s the quality of western tech and the much more lax environment that you don’t have a “gun” pointed at their head
For more information about Professor Hazell's book, go here: routledge.pub/Armour
as much as I appreciate mr. Hazell's insights into academia, I feel like the actual answer posed in the title remains unanswered. He talked about braindrain, different approaches in academics, but not really about armour or vehicle design at all. Of course, some information is classified, but even so this felt like it veered away from the subject beyond usefulness.
I felt that the answer was pretty clearly yes and the rest of the discussion was an attempt to explain why. It was just hedged in academic language.
@@petergerdes1094 That’s what I’m getting from this also. You can’t really talk about current design without looking a little bit at where the next generation of engineers comes from, and what quality of them youre likely to have.
Those are all extremely important inputs. I guess maybe you expected it more engineering based but i think the video addressed what it was titled.
I guess his answer was not enough open source work being done in university and too much top secret stuff in the government sector leads to stagnation in innovation. The Soviets could get around that problem by dint of massive investment in military R&D. The Russians simply don't have the resources the Soviets did, and also spend lower % of there GDP on the military. As too, has that lead to a falling behind in design? I think the Soviets were failing behind in the late Soviet era, and I think in the early Russian period there was vertically no invest in military R&D, it has recovered to a lower rate now. Russia can thank there lucky stars the west rested on its laurels.
The Russians are suffering from the efficiency of Soviet Industry in producing military hardware and the former size of their military. They created such a massive glut of surplus weapons that even thirty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, there are still huge stockpiles. That lowered the value of their hardware and made it so widely available that most countries opted for incremental upgrades and not new weapons. With the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy also drastically contracted so there were limited funds to develop new weapons and if they couldn't rely on foreign orders how do they pay for it?
Bernardt. I love your videos but this video was "Is Russian Armor Design falling behind?" and we got a long discussion about universities, publishing, computer science and erm....nothing about armour that I could see :D
The thing to understand is that Russia is trying to be a superpower with an economy the size of Australia's. Even if they somehow created a genuine superweapon they do not have the economic resources to produce more than a few parade models.
And that was before the 2014 sanctions and the debarcle of the Ukrainian invasion.
Boy, you dont understand economy. Russia maintains and army arsenal rival usa in size, mainly land forces cause geography. And with their small economy, somehow europe is now in recession and germanies industry will be reduced by over a third if they shut down oil and gas to europe. Think before you write such stupid statement.
Its not about superpower as a goal don't get yourself confused. We are living not in DC universe. Its all about market owning and making profits, not some stupid superpower dreams.
When you are outproducing Australia 20-30 times, in real world products 1:1 you can have an economy of the size of Australia and be a superpower. Out with the 300+$ hammers, in with the 15$ ones, of you know what I mean.
How much steel Russia / Australia / US produces? Just curious. Don't even look at China, since it dwarves you all.
If you go by real economy size, not nominal, that is, you adjust for prices, it's more like the size of Germany, though not as advanced in manufacturing.
Yup. Russian tank "design" is fine. It's an par with any seven year old. Russian tank manufacturing however is way behind. Russian tank manufacturing may even be lagging behind that hypothetical seven year old.
This is a terrible indictment of the University system. Professors are not paid to teach, but instead publish to make more money for the University. The teaching is being done by students who are working for their PHD. The normal students are not receiving the education they paying for. When I went to a private college in the 60s, all of the professors, including the head of each department taught. When my son went to a public university, he never saw the head of the Department. Apparently, this is still going on, and the average student is getting the shaft.
I'm a more recent graduate from a public university, and at least in my department (the History Department), the head not only taught classes, but taught many classes for undergrad and graduate students alike. That's the exception not the rule though, many departments in many universities are dumping all the courses onto adjunct professors and the like. But it has very little to do with research or lack of research at a given university. Instead, it's a result of Universities being pressured to cut staff costs and raise more funds from the student body.
The idea that professors don’t teach is a myth. I teach in STEM at a large public research university in the USA. In my department we have about 45 faculty and 100 grad students. We’re researchers and many of us have external grant funding, but nonetheless *every* professor teaches. It’s true that many of our lower-division courses are taught by grad students, but upper-division courses are taught by faculty. This is the norm at research universities. It gives our PhD students some teaching experience, and our grad students are generally conscientious and effective teachers.
I graduated from one of the largest American public universities with my PhD less than 10 years ago and my experience was the opposite. Classes were all taught by professors. Some grad students taught recitations. As far as paper mills go, yes the professors ARE paid to publish because that is the deliverable for the outside funding that they receive. If it wasn't for outside funding resources (like described in the video), the amount of research being produced would be a fraction of what it is now.
@@iroll If that is widespread, it's good to hear. According to the Video, the old system is still pretty prevalent. Thanks for you info.
Yeah, not true at all. Like, it's beyond easy to fact check this at any local uni near you. A few exceptions never make the rule.
as someone who went to one of those universities which had huge defense contracts, it wasn't at least to me the defense spending but that the university seemed to prioritize the R&D over actual opportunities for students and the facilities for students. We had 60 year old labs and crappy equipment while the university was building a state of the art facility for GE just down the road and had literally an entire second campus just for the research groups
I think it might be a bit apples to oranges at the moment. For one, we are seeing basically T72B3, a 1970s design thats been modernized. That seems to have been the majority tank used in Ukraine for instance. Which is fairly old, i mean it is modernized but you can only get up to a certain level so far. The other problem is, this is a conflict with a near peer adversary, Ukraine is armed with similar weapons that Russia has, maybe not same quality, but at start of the war, they had similar equipment, arguably with NATO weapons shipments, that gap was closed in some regard, at least to quality of weapons, but obviously not quantity. We haven't faced similar challenges in a long time, and Iraq/Afghanistan were not quite the same situation. Although kind of a small taste, is the destruction Turkish Leopard tanks faced in nothern Syria.
the turkish leopard being destroyed was a tactical failure not an equipment failure.
On topic of "1970's(it wasn't) design being modernized"... care to tell me how you view T-72BU-M... T-90M, I mean?
From what I've understand turkish Leopard were used without support and parked on the top of hills to be targeted. That being said tank forces in the west need serious upgrades as well. We both spend too much time on low intensity conflicts ( I mean thank God but we need to be prepared for the worst).
@@gabrielecavaleri7525 we are already working on it in the united states and im pretty sure other nato allies are as well
the turkish leopards were destroyed by atgms because they were in the open with no support or recon
In physics, the feeling I get regarding the mathematical focus of russian work is that during the cold war, they were doing really good work, but certain resources weren't there, so while the west was able to fund and build experiments, russia considered theory and phenomenology. In many cases it was very forward thinking. We can only now make use of lot of the papers they wrote 40 yrs ago, since materials and methods and have advanced.
I like looking at the covers of SciFi books from the 40s and 50s. A lot of their ideas (especially in aeronautics) were far ahead of their time.
They were the 2nd largest economy on the planet for most of the cold war. It doesn't add up tbh
@@johnpaul3099 This is just an anecdote, so maybe. But they could be in control of the all the worlds money for all it matters - that doesn't mean they spent it on physics experiments, they went bankrupt trying to prop up their nuclear weapons program after all. 2nd largest economy doesn't mean much when compared to collaborations that draw funding from the worlds largest + the next 5 down the list for example as well.
@@shanerooney7288 They forced, bribed and fooled a lot of German engineers after the war into working for them, not to mention they bought foreign licenses and also stole tech through espionage.
@@johnpaul3099 yes but they spent muxh of it on the military and wasted tons of it. There wasnt much to finance studies of things that dont improve the prestige of the ussr (see the space program), or provide a military or financial return.
Regarding Bernhardt's observation at 11:00, and for those who are less familiar, one of the most informative "meta" pieces of information on an academic paper is the order of the names of the authors. It is very, very, very likely that "first" author is the lead writer and editor and the "last" author is the project director - the one who employs the first author - and that the "middle" authors are collaborators. So, if Dr. J. Smith is a notable expert with a lab full of research assistants, a quick search of Google Scholar will have a lot of 'last author' citations and less frequent 'first author' citations.
In China, the first author would always be the person with the highest bureaucratic position
This is not universal, it does depend on the field of study. Some adhere to this principle, some don't, some prefer alphabetical order.
That's notoriously untrue for a lot of fields. I've seen medical publications where people worked hard for years, then a professor with more status walks in and they put their name first, or the people who did all the work never get promoted. So the real expert is the first name with no, or the lowest, academic qualification in the list.
Art and detached academic institutes are notorious for this as well. They do something and by the time it gets good, management steps in, puts their names on it and the people who did the work vanish.
And since this kind of credit-stealing allows both bumping the real authors down the list, or adding undue names at the back, it really distorts the image.
For example I have a book on military logistics where the most prominent AND the last names are responsible for the most questionable sections of the book.
Interesting, all - can you comment on other fields?
My experience is in engineering and applied sciences (chemistry, microbiology)
@@nvelsen1975 For a book, it IS my experience that the first author is the lead - but not for academic papers. Interesting to hear all of your experiences.
9:55 One of professors on my university told us the similar thing, where the some Russian scientist has designed an Anti-Ballistic missile system missile during the USSR years, someone has put the file somewhere and they forgot about it, until they re-discovered the design like 30 years later and they've used a lot of those design decisions in new anti ballistic systems that they have been testing recently. At least his work was not in vain.
Well sorry to tell you but your professor is kinda wrong near the end of the ussr they designed a lot of interesting and really good machines, like the buran space shuttle, the an225, the object 195, testing and succesfuly integrating 152mm gun on their existing tanks and so on the problem is that russia is not the ussr it doesnt have the same budget and recources
Yes , welcome to the USSR. As my Stoic late Grandad told me "I gave my health to the government"
Russia has come to the point where developing new technology is half archaeology. It's like the whole SLS situation in a scale 100 times larger..
Stealth - Soviet idea.
I enjoyed listening to this talk, but I feel it was more about university cultures than about Russian tank design per se.
Talk to a professor, you get the concerns of a professor.
To be fair, the guest talked about what he knows. I don't think anyone outside of the Russian armor industry knows whether it is falling behind.
Next time, maybe Bernhard could ask him about his field of expertise, impact dynamics.
I don't mean that I didn't enjoy it, I am just suggesting this may want to be retitled as a talk on university culture and how it affects military technology. This was a very eye opening lecture.
@@Lexoka One of Bernhard's other guests, a Ukrainian tank officer said that it was not. They tend to have better insights into Russia than we do thanks to their ability to speak the language.
@@Lexoka The design of most Russian armour (all T-72 and T-80 variants, plus their ERA) is not even secret, they're pretty simple layered armour designs (and fairly effective as well). Only T-90M and T-14 have designs not publicly known, as far as I know, so he could have definitely talked about it.
Bernhardt, more collaborations pleaseeee... Love your stuff, but even more love hearing the product of you talking to these impressive collaborators.
In my opinion Soviet/Russian tank design fell behind with the introduction of the M-1, Leopard II and Challenger. Used to know a guy that was a veteran of M-1's at the end of the Cold War. He used to go on and on about how bad the Soviet tanks across the line where compared to his M-1. I finally got him to stop by asking him 3 questions;
How much did his M-1 weigh combat loaded rounded off? About 74 tons.
How much did a T-72 of the day weigh combat loaded rounded off? About 44 tons.
Can you do an tank with M-1 levels of protection, firepower and crew survival on 44 tons? No.
He never brought it up again at least with me. The point is any design is a trade off.
The Russians seem to have forgotten tanks aren't ballerinas they are boxers
If a tank can't walk into a slugging match, you're better off using an IFV
Well i remember i saw M1 fanboys flame the armata 14's turrent. Sort of you cant shoot if the controll system is damaged (like no manual system). And then abram X announced the same design lul.
Well of course most Soviet tanks are going to be bad compared to an M1, it’s a full generation or more ahead of virtually all of them!
Anyhow, footage from around the world shows that nothing much has changed; any tank can be killed.
@@Mortablunt yeah but the next question is do you need a javelin or is a rpg good for it? A tank may not be invincible but ffs atleast make sure a damn rpg can’t just take it out
@@dmknght8946 But it's better because it's American design.
There was hardly any discussion about russian armor design. all you talked about is how universities work.
If we assess Russian tank losses according to the data base available on Oryx under the title: "Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine" we find a few trends in the loss pattern of Russian tanks:
1) T72s comprise the largest percentage of the total Russian tank losses at 67%, with the T80 being second most common at 24%. T62, T64 & T90 losses are relatively negligible. In the case of these latter three models, it's probable that the low percentage of T62 & T64 is simply due to the small numbers deployed in combat. The few T90 losses is likely a result of better survivability and possibly low numbers in action.
2) A high percentage of Russian tanks - 47.5% - are simply abandoned and captured by Ukrainian forces. This suggests Russians maintain their tanks poorly, have inadequate recovery equipment and/or lack proper maintenance units. Furthermore, it may indicate low crew morale and training. In which case, crews simply abandon their vehicles when under heavy fire (but this last point is speculation).
3) With the exception of the T62, for each generation of newer Russian tank model, the number of destroyed vehicles decreases as a percentage of the total vehicles lost of that model. The greatest decrease being between the T64 and the T72, with 78% destroyed versus 56% destroyed as a percent of their model's total loss respectively. The percent drops about 10% thereafter for each successive model (ie T80, T90). The T90 possess the lowest destruction rate at 30% of the model's total losses. Of the 648 identified Russian tanks destroyed so far, only nine are T90s. This decrease in the destruction rate as a percentage of total losses per model probably indicates better survivability for each newer generation of Russian tank.
4) An additional 157 unidentified Russian tanks were lost during combat. Of this total, 145 were destroyed while 12 were abandoned. The high ratio of destroyed to abandoned tanks in this category suggests these vehicles are "total write offs" or completely annihilated and, consequently, difficult to identify.
5) Of the 1,233 Russian tanks lost 438 (35%) possessed only Soviet era upgrades, including nearly all T62s and about 400 T72s.
Russian Tank Loss Data
Key:
D = destroyed
C = captured/abandoned/damaged
(L) = total lost
* unknown type
T62m 3D, 31C (34 L)
T62mv 3D, 3C (6 L)
T62 series = 6D, 34C (40L) = 15%D vs 85%C
T64a 2D (2 L)
T63bv 31D, 9C (40 L)
T64 series = 33D, 9C (42 L) = 78%D vs 22%C
T72a 17D, 17C (34L)
T72av 5D, 4C (9L)
T72b 124D, 85C (209 L)
T72b obr.89 40D, 35C (75 L)
T72ba 4D, 12C (16 L)
T72b3 123 D, 97C (220 L)
T72b Obr.14 1D, 1C (2 L)
T72b Obr.16 79D, 95C (174 L)
T72* 68D, 22 C (90 L)
T72 series = 461D, 364C (825 L) = 56%D vs 44%C
T80bv 75D, 72C (147 L)
T80bvk 1C, (1 L)
T80u 37D, 49C (86 L)
T80uk 3C (3L)
T80um2 1D (1L)
T80bvm 22D, 32C (54L)
T80* 3D, 3C (6 L)
T80 series = 138D, 160C (298 L) = 46%D vs 54%C
T90a 8D, 18C (26 L)
T90m 1D, 3C (4 L)
T90 series = 9D, 21C (30 L) = 30%D vs 70%C
Total losses T62, T64, T72, T80, T90
= 1,233
Total destroyed T62, T64, T72, T80, T90
= 648 ~ 52.5%
Total captured/abandoned/damaged T62...T90
= 586 ~ 47.5%
~ Loss per model as a percent of overall total
T62 = 3%
T64 = 3%
T72 = 67%
T80 = 24%
T90 = 2%
I would add one caveat to these figures. These numbers represent only those tanks that have been photographed and geolocated, so it is very likely this understates Russian tank losses. Destroyed tanks that are in Russian territory, tanks that have been lost due to poor maintenance or an inability to repair them, or tanks that have not been photographed and geolocated won't be included in this list. However, that said, Oryx is a great database.
@@nicholasconder4703 Yes, there are certainly more Russian tanks lost than listed on the Orxy site for the reasons you mention. Conversely, considering that both combatants use the same equipment (more or less), it's also quite possible many of the Russian tank losses listed on the Oryx site are actually Ukrainian. Certainly this would be true for the 157 unidentified Russian tanks. Furthermore, I've gone through Oryx's photographic documentation and found that a large percentage of destroyed tanks attributed to Russian losses posses no markings or any characteristic that would allow identification to either side. I've e-mailed the sites author regarding methods for national verification, but never received an answer. So I think this aspect of the kill list should also be kept in mind.
@@nicholasconder4703 Oryx, when audited, looked like he was overestimating losses by a factor of 1.5-2.5x
>photographed and geolocated
Lolwhat.
Oryx doesn't care about geolocation at all. It's only unique photographs.
@@IvanTre Well, if that's the case, then we will go with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense figures, which are even worse for Russia.
Interesting from analyzing the data it seems modern Russian tanks aren’t bad at all.
The T-14 Armata comes up a lot but that project was dead in the water the moment sanctions kicked in, and not just the 2022 sanctions but the 2014 sanctions. Their high tech industries, especially their armaments, are so reliant on external products (like most nations without their own ultramodern tech development and manufacturing base) it literally cannot catch up because it doesn't have parts available.
With what they have available, things are just too advanced for them to be able to rely on internal development only.
Source: I made it up
@@phunkracy well, at least you're being honest about doing so. Honesty is the first step to facing reality;)
Tom Clancy said 30 years ago that every time the ruuians come out with a new piece of equipment the west would shake with fear and then come out with there own new equipment to counter the Russian/soviet equipment. 10 years later the west would get ahold of one of those pieces of equipment they feared and find out it's garbage.
@@phunkracy Cope harder
@@phunkracy Russia buys the thermal sights for their tanks from France. Have fun fielding a modern MBT without any thermal optics.
T72 is practically 1960ties design (it was designed as cheaper and more reliable version of T64).. while current western tanks are designed in late 1970ties.. practically nobody designed new tank since... they all use same tank.. At least Abrams took crew safety further with all ammo in blow-out panels, but other western tanks dont have such protection for all stored ammo (Leopard 2)... frankly, this whole video told practically nothing about russian armor design, and why it failed..
Thanks. Professor Hazel presents an interesting perspective.
he does, but he is wrong. Almost ALL actual innovation has come from the hated MIC over the past 30 years.
I must be the only person outside of Russia to think that by and large Soviet design ethos has been vindicated. That Soviet equipment on both sides has preformed really well.
The title does not accurately reflect the content of the video, the discussion went completely off-topic.
Having been following both Russian and Western Armor developments over the years, I don't really see evidence of the Russians falling behind in the theoretical and design sense. But in terms of getting funds to fully develop new vehicles and tech, as well as the industrial and advanced tech they definitely struggle. Leading to old tech just being modernized and soldiering on in leu of other newer options.
Interesting discussion Bernhard.
This is the problem of russia it has the design know how but what’s the use of that design know how when you can’t actually make that shit
I find kind of funny how people like to draw conclusions that don't conclude nothing, is not like the Abrams, Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2 aren't 80's tanks either, most of what NATO use is as old as Russian stuff, thing is that Russia is in a regular war, NATO isn't, and we can't say if the results wouldn't be that different.
@@Rrgr5 modern atgms can penetrate pretty much any modern mbt, both eastern and western
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle что вы со своими ,,технологиями,, бежали из афганистана как крысы с корабля . Они вас палками и камнями выгнали 🤣🤣🤣
@@user-gn6bn3ow8u and we haven't seen Israeli APS against APS defeating RPGs. It is easy to be superior with new tech against older tech but for some people that is huge revelation. And obsession with front of a turret, while ignoring that Javelins destroyed Russian tanks from above, same place where NATO and Russian thanks have comparable, that is nonexistent armor. Somehow nobody dared to show video of NATO tank without crew (dummies from ballistic gel would be great) surviving hit by Javelin and dummies being lightly wounded in worst case thanks to famous M1 blast doors. When Saudis lost M1A1, "it was older, export model", same excused which was mocked for Iraqi T-72.
I dont think so, what is falling behind is Russian army training and dsiciplined or its probably not evolved much from the USSR days.
A really nice video, but it misses its title a little in my opinion, focusing mostly on the connection between universities and the defence sector (maybe a different title may have served it better). Also, I guess you had to cut the video shorter for time, but some of the points didn't really lead anywhere in my opinion, and those could have freed up a little space. Don't take this as talking bad about the video, just some potential improvements
I think you put the wrong title and picture on this video, I have no idea what this was about but it wasnt about russian tank design
In 1986 the Soviet education collapsed, and Russia has never recovered. They have some spectacularly talented people, but they tend to leave because there’s nowhere for them, and everyone else has subpar skills. You see it in every sector of the Russian economy. It’s why they’re buying drones with simple two stroke engines and no real avionics from Iran.
I guess you never studied in Russia. And: If you take IT Russia is Superpower
@@dimarusanov6107 was superpower, over 70.000 IT and Tech Personell have left Russia this year alone...
no Russian is leaving for the west in these times. they don't want to be harassed every day
But cheap Iranian drone makes same damage like extremely expensive HIMARS rocket. In both cases limitation is knowing exact target location.
@@JK-dv3qe thousands are... Because they also don't want to be arrested at home...
The T-14 is an extremely well thought out design solution to modern threats to tanks and has much improved crew survivability. The problem though isn't the concept and the design, it's that the actual product appears to be a complete lemon.
"The T-14 is an extremely well thought out design solution to modern threats to tanks and has much improved crew survivability. ", since you know very little about it, there is no way you can be sure of that. You only have the Russian propaganda machine to base that upon.
Plus Russia lacks production, only a few T-14 out there same with the SU-57 and whatever other prototypes they wish to produce in the future.
How is it a lemon
The concept of the Armata be a perfect solution don't translate to the actual battlefield it seems.
@@gaiofattos2 based on what?
One thing to note that, at least here in the United States, there is increasing push back against university systems because those systems no longer function like 'education' institutions, but rather corporations. Many universities in the US, especially private ones, their 'professors' are actually their product researchers/corporate workforce. And they often take the best of their students to then work on essentially private research topics that the university owns the intellectual property rights to. Here in Atlanta GA, there's a university called Emory University, private, expensive, and they now control/own/run so many hospitals and health facilities in Atlanta, that they account for about seventy percent of all high teir medical services and their 'university' now literally has a CEO to run the 'business' side of things. Some are pushing back about such practices because universities, even private ones, get a ton of grant money from the government, that private companies do not.
Yeah, there are various problems with Western universities as well. The overall question is also how the "university sector" might transform, since in terms of "providing information" a lot of the institutions etc. are not really necessary anymore, even for research in some areas the question about the necessity of a "local hub" etc. is also debatable.
Excellent discussion. Thank you Bernhard and Paul. Some interesting points raised about various influences on academic research, dissemination thereof and practical application of such research. You need to understand the processes in order to obtain practical value from the monies invested in academia.
One of the biggest massive failures of Russia was not creating a semiconductor industry after the fall of the cold war. Russia has to rely on TSMC in Taiwan for their semiconductors that go in their military vehicles and missiles. Now that Taiwan stopped sending them chips they are in trouble. Russia should have spent the money in the late early 2000s to try and get as much technology from the west. maybe open a few fabs with older nodes like 90nm and 65nm.
You can tell this professor know something that we should not know and he is trying hard not to slip up or said sth he shouldn't
This missed the mark hard. Most problems we face, across the board, are political, not academic. Russia during the Soviet era, for all its problems, had a guiding ideological framework that acted as a motivator for specific policies as innovation. Yes, they were authoritarian and had plenty of corruption, but a great many of them saw themselves as building an alternate political project and wanted to innovate not only as a way to justify the actions of the USSR, but political leadership was incentivized to pursue it as a means of both soft power in international relations but also survival. Today Russia has retained the authoritarian nature of the USSR, but lost the social safety net that made life more tolerable there, and embraced a mafia like system of governance where corruption runs completely rampant as the line between government and "private" industry is non existent. Most educated Russians leave for better opportunities elsewhere. And the main job of the military has really been to keep the civilian population in line, which doesn't take much. When interacting with someone like putin, giving bad news can be dangerous at the best of times. So Putin, whether he intended this or not, surrounded himself with "YES" men. Being around people like this will warp anybodies perception of what is going on. On top of that military brass have been caught selling basic provisions online to make extra money (to say nothing of the skimming that bureaucrats likely do). Then, Russia maintains this vast military, which is largely a relic of the USSR. She has a nuclear force nearly as large as the USA (albeit with a greater emphasis on tactical, rather than strategic arms) a massive army, navy, and air force, with 1/10th the GDP of the USA (about 1/5th accounting for population). They want the numbers in order to be taken seriously, but maintaining such a vast arsenal would be a financial challenge for a politically healthy state. With such endemic corruption and political ass covering to avoid passing off the powers that be it's likely just lie piled upon lie. Soldiers never received training, but politicians and brass likely insisted they did, and hardwares performance was likely both greatly exaggerated, and often not fielded because of people skimming off the top. Russia's problem overwhelmingly political, the idea that this is a matter of government vs private labs is absurd.
I might be missing something, but reading the headline I expected Russian armor design to be the topic. Now, I do appreciate this channel, but honestly, there wasn't too much substance in this video. I'm pussled what came out of this clip. Except the professor in a tedious and tiringly diplomatic fashion told some aneqdote implying that Russia doesn't encourage or produce innovative, scientific research in the field. It took 13,5 minutes to convey this obvious message. *What a nothingburger.* Sigh...
i think Russia makes weapons 'good enough' to do the job. it is not flashy like western weapons (and the west just got their asses handed to them by the Taliban, let's not forget that)
All the while justifying governments funneling money into universities. That sort of thing is absolutely not a conflict of interest whatsoever.
@@JK-dv3qe you have no clue .
Ya that was like off topic train wreck
@@JK-dv3qe The west didn't get their asses headed to them by the taliban whatsoever. The US and our allies horrendously screwed up the withdrawal and then some other non western forces got wrecked but western forces were not beaten in any form.
Design wise? They're great, nothing to say here. Production capacity on the other hand...
I definitely dispute that. We have no idea whether the design is effective or not. Given the cost of them and the performance of russias other tanks on the battlefield, I’d say it’s a very high risk purchase. If I were a tank buyer I would buy something battle proven like challenger 2. Actually I’d probably go for challenger 3 for the smoothbore gun and the active defence systems. Dorchester armour is by far the best performing armour to date. I’d want my crews to survive because hood tankers take years to train
@@UlsterScott Who would buy challenger 3 - the worst Western tank?
They're death traps. An Abrams exploded recently during training. Magazine explosion. Everyone in the tank survived.
Meanwhile pretty much ever Soviet/Russia tank post T64 are death traps with ammo storage under the crew as the crew sits in a Rotating Basket. If the ammo cooks off which it often does, the turret and almost the entire crew pop like a Pringle Lid, killing the entire crew.
There is literally nonthing good about such a design. The War in Ukraine, Russian turret popping has pretty much become a meme now, despitw the issue being a serious mark of criticism for well over a generation. It has taken a Social Media dominated Conflict to make it public knowledge.
Many have also pointed out Russia's newest designs look like T72s with extra panels welded onto the turrets/hulls. Which makes many question whether say the T-14 is really any better than a modernized T80 or T90. T-14 may very well be just a T90 with a new skin in short.
@@dimarusanov6107 send some t14’s to fight with it and let’s see shall we. It’s the only tank in the world today that has never been knocked out in battle. We can’t say that about anything russian now can we ? Or American for that matter oh not German either.
@@UlsterScott lmao has t14 ever been in a battle? It’s like saying one of Chinese or Middle Eastern low production Vaporware fighter jets are amazing because they haven’t crashed. Yeah it’s easy not to crash when you can barely build any and barely fly those you build.
T15 was meant to have thousands of units finished years ago. No sign of them. The project has basically been scrapped.
Keep on point please. This video is lots of talking around the subject itself but I didn't learn any answers or insight into the topic.
As a former graduate student in several universities, I appreciated the analysis and insights. Particularly the bit about Russia-Germany-Berkley
The adaptation of tanks against the drone-threat is IMO the biggest step for coventional warfare on the ground - and Russia is struggeling to take it. A flawed tank can perform well in an otherwise working combined warfare backing them up. Best example is the last (not the recent) fighting in the Karabach-region, when the Armenian forces were beaten more or less by drones alone.
Who has recently been screaming bloody murder about drones ? Russia, or Ukraine?
@@IvanTre I remember both screaming a lot in the recent months. And even with the usage of drones - their implementation to this point is cumbersome and far from ideal. Especially tanks should be able to work with their own designated drones. Idk if T14 could, but T90 and older can't.
IMO the sightings of UFOs is the precursor to a completely different warfare, when swarms of AI driven drones with stupidly fast flight maneuvers will beat every conventional army down in a matter of minutes - most likely by the usage of chemical weapons.
@@dointh4198 Russians haven't been complaining much really. Meanwhile UA got EU to hypocritically sanction Iran for the drones sold to Russia when half of EU is sending weapons to UA...
@@IvanTre ok, what's your point then? I made a suggestion over a technical issue. You are talking political stuff. None of my business
Would any NATO tank survive "bottom attacking" drone? I don't think so, it would be at least mobility kill.
Something to remember, the research in the 70's and 80's was the Soviet Union, not Russia, and Ukraine featured heavily in that.
Russia has long since cut themselves off from that.
Bernhard, I'm sorry to say that I made you into a Runescape🦀 meme. Tank go brrr
Slight criticism: Try stay on the topic.
But it is a good video. For Russia funding was always lacking and problems in competition, since a lot of institutions and companies were merged to avoid bankruptcy and of course a lot of their USSR potential ended up outside Russia. Ukraine was doing work on Diesel Powered Tanks for example. And while sadly T-84 has a lot of problems, when it worked it was an amazing tank.
And retirement (partial) of T-80 as a development platform, as opposed to T-72, which was heavily changed to T-90 ended up with more Quantity rather than Quality production. Since a lot of work on T-90 was also applicable to T-72's. And while it is a good platform, I do have a feeling (and it's just my feeling, I might be completely wrong) that T-80 was more of the higher cost but higher quality Tank. Though this wouldn't have helped Russia since their training is mediocre (depending on the unit, but look at 1st GTA performance) and half-measures that didn't allow conscripts to take part in the "Special Military Operation" only made those units less valuable. I bring up 1st GTA, since at least 4th GTD within it was armed with T-80 variants. And those that were captured are highly praised by Ukrainians. And it will be tough to replace them for Russia, even if they have enough tankers with decent training.
Even during the Cold War--after the fielding of the M1 and M2 series into the US Army, we were positive we had absolute superiority over Soviet armor both wrt equipment and tactical approach.
That superiority has only increased since then.
I agree but disagree, with the Ukraine conflict going on i think the Russians will use the experience to update their t-14 tank to match the US not to mention their crews will have experience on tank v tank combat. The last time the US had a tank battle was back in 1991 (I think)
@@williejohnson1732 and that was against second-rate opponent. USA has never fought a near-peer adversary war since WWII. they got defeated by the Taliban just recently
@@JK-dv3qe No they didn't. The US had already withdrawn their combat troops nearly a year prior. Claiming that the US was "defeated" because they had a token garrison force in an area is pretty disingenuous. Strictly speaking, no "major power" has fought a "near-peer adversary" since WW2.
When the M1 was first fielded, it would have struggled against the T-72b 1989 variant. The m829 and m829a1 would have struggled to get through the kontakt-5 common on many Soviet tanks at the time, but western tanks generally had better optics, and farther effective ranges. But when compared to the T-80U, that gap closes significantly, as the T-80U had a better fire control system and better optics when compared to the T-72b.
@@williejohnson1732 or, veteran tank crews die, military aged men leave, their industry cant recover due to sanctions...
No answer to the title question. ¡Ay, caramba!
It seems to me that what reputation Soviet armor enjoyed during the Cold War came about largely as a result of World War II and the performance of the venerable T-34. But also making an impression at the time was the advent of a Russian auto-loader, which, in turn, allowed for a reduction in tank crew size from four to three. That, in turn, allowed the Russians to reduce the size of their tanks generally, thereby making them a smaller target for an enemy to shoot at. Even so, it was the sheer number of Soviet tanks that was especially concerning back then--quantity rather than quality, as other commenters have pointed out.
I would disagree. T-80 was a great tank that was really powerful for it's times. It's rather that Russia chose to more heavily modernize and work on T-72's derivatives such as T-90 (I'm not saying that T-90 is just modernized T-72, but idea behind the platform and some parts are the same, at least in first models of T-90). That gave them a lot of quantity, but at a loss of quality.
The T-34 was a similar "quantity over quality". But again, you're building something that is meant to go into a hostile environment. The Russian mentality seems to be more "We know this is going to get destroyed, so how quickly and economically can we replace this". I believe it was this very channel that pointed out that some components on the T-34 were only designed to last slightly longer than the tank's typical battlefield lifespan. WW2 battles (and by exntension the theorized Cold War battles in Europe) involved large numbers of soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc. Due to a higher amount of danger being thrown about in a relatively small area, the lifespan of pretty much anything in the theorized Fulda Gap battles would logically be very short.
You can see related comments on other videos, see the recent AbramsX and StrikerX videos put out recently by General Dynamics. They go something like "That's a really expensive tank that can get blown up by a much cheaper man-portable anti-tank missle". In short, all the quality in the world is meaningless if the opponent can employ large numbers of cheap and effective countermeasures. Despite this, is all ultimately comes down to the actual tactical employment of these things. We see Russian tanks being destroyed because they lack infantry support, which is a concept that should not be unknown to the Russian military. It tells me that Russian leadership, even at the company level, is either entirely untrained on the matter, doesn't care, both, or they're not actually trying to simply destroy Ukraine like many in "the West" like to think. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen restrictive rules of enagement hamper military operations and cause unnecessary/avoidable casualties and material losses.
T-34? you mean how many features of the T-34 that it gets praise for in WW2 were abandoned and never used again in Russian tank design, such as its suspension, side sloped armor, etc. T-34 was a mass-produced "good enough" but otherwise garbage tank that did what it needed to do (mass production and take casualties) and nothing more .
@@jannegrey593 Was the T-80 a great tank? I’m not so sure that this point is well established. I certainly don’t think the type has a lot of combat experience to back up the claim. From what I’ve read, the T-80 was supposed to be the successor to the T-72 but didn't quite work out as planned. For this reason, among others, most of the tanks the Russian Army has acquired in the last two decades have actually been refurbished and upgraded T-72B3s.
@@ericmkendall1 The t80 has an unfairly bad reputation. They used it wrong and didnt kit it out for urban warfare in its debut in chechnya. From that, its reputation was dead, especially when it already needed a good rep to overcome the concerns about its turbine engine.
Now its also a bit outdated compared to the at weapons its facing.
As a Canadian Russian immigrant, having been trained in science originally, I would like to point out that Russian scientists and engineers have a unanimous outlook about the deplorable state of Russian science and industry in general. However, that fact should not be equaled to the state of developing countries, even if the real condition of the industry is sometimes comparable. Russian people's investments in the cultural and educational level in the time of the Soviet Union were so high that it still continues to pay off. In this aspect, Russi is still on par with any Western European country. Especially if we consider the general decline of those countries in the same matter for the general population. That means, that shall the government's economic (very third world) policy change and new perspectives for industry development open, the CULTURAL potential is still there. Hardware and software can be brought and training achieved, but if there is no culture for that, NOTHING will work. And we have seen numerous examples of such failures around the world.
That means that there is potential to respond to the new challenges first of all on people's level. And we already see it in the current war. On the opposite side -- however much money does the USA dump into the military industry, culturally, as the people, Americans are still dwarfs to compare with their British ancestors, which is compensated only by the continuous influx of immigrants and enormous economic power. Precisely because they never understood the paramount importance of the culture of people, without which there is no base for the culture of science and engineering.
History: the study and reporting on what has already happened, which many of us find interesting, but rarely improves our lives except as it can give us something interesting to talk about. Modern Sciences: the study and reporting of the new, unknown and unexplained phenomena, which is used to improve our lives now and into the future.
Both are needed, but one is far more important for our continued existense.
Was there actually anything about this topic in the video?
if any, very little....
@@JK-dv3qe He got the question and answered, I don't know. Did I miss anything else?
@@sirbum1918 you must be smarter than the majority. CONGRATULATIONS! (ARE YOUR MOM PROUD?) just asking
No.
@@JK-dv3qe Yes, mom always tell me I'm such a smart boy. 🤣
Don’t think it’s design, it’s manufacturing, training,maintenance and how used.
Judging by the new prototype Abrams X which uses many of the features the T14 Armata already has like a remote turret I would say the Russians are not falling behind they just don’t have the capacity to build enough of them.
or the will, since they didn't tried to start any of the smaller stuff like the APC (BTR-82 is not their best design), but this would be because of the war.
Yeah, and perhaps they aren’t using them properly. Modern warfare demands a combined arms approach. Homogenous formations will get slaughtered no matter how magnificent their engineering might be.
@@bathhatingcat8626 you are wrong here, Russian formations seens to be too diverse to their own good from what I know.
"BTG" would be a combined arms Battalion, which means they have little infantry, too much tanks, aka too diverse.
jesse terrell - EXACTLY!!!
How can Russian tanks tech be 'falling behind' when the #1 military in the world (US) is now going in the direction of Armata?
☮
@@McRocket copying what? These concepts have been around for decades, for example the abrams ttb implemented a crewless turret and an autoloader. Ofc any modern crewless turret design will be compared to armata.
Why do you(or we) always forget about syria.
Thousands of russians tanks got popped over there but no one really talks/talked about that.
Russian armor design is also being held back by Russian engine design.
Heavy, fuel inefficient and unreliable the extra weight could be used for more useful features
I think the guest has never heard of the institution with the most Nobel prizes in physics, Bell labs.
?
I think it’s disingenuous to a degree to claim that the Russians are still using Cold War tanks. Technically the Abrams is a Cold War tank. Thus how are the T-72B3 or B3M or T-80BVM any different from the most modern M1A2 SEP variant? All these tanks are modernizations of their older Cold War versions. To top it off, these 3 Russian tank models are the tanks the Russians are primarily using during this ongoing war. They only started using much older tanks because they were depleting their stocks of more modern vehicles.
One thing that is telling against the Russian tanks is their improper usage by the Russian Army. Most videos we see indicate the Russians are not using combined arms warfare, and their infantry are poorly trained and do not support their tanks properly. I would add, however, that there are definite design flaws in the Russian tanks that lead to unnecessary deaths of the crews.
I don't remember exactly where I heard it but the Russian economy is reportedly the equivalent of NY State. Russia is trying to maintain superpower status with the U.S. and China with a economy a fraction of those two entities. So it should come as no surprise in hindsight that the Russian military was in a state of decay. At least in some aspects. They're seemingly full speed ahead with hypersonic development and some other strategic assets but it seems their conventional forces may have suffered. At least to this casual observer it seems that way. I may be missing important context.
That number is usually without considering PPP, they go from the 9th strongest economy to the 6th. Even than, Russia and other countries can purchase things that a single state cannot, so comparing economies like that doesn't work out to well.
The US had Hypersonic cruise missiles in the 60s. The most recent hypersonic missile we built I can name is the LOSAT from the 90s, which is an ATGM.
They spend a fraction of the US strategic missile budget on an arsenal that is at least on paper much larger then the US one.
I am very skeptical that they've really upgraded their nuclear arsenal, and I have the suspicion that most of their advanced stuff, like the Su-57 and like the T-14, exist only in token numbers, and that the majority of the arsenal is stuff from the 80s and 90s.
@@barrag3463 you're correct that the most modern equipment only exists in token numbers, but this isn't that relevant to the purchasing power argument. Those are certainly expensive systems. But upgraded Soviet built tanks are not. They cost a fraction, as does their manpower, both in their military and their factories. And they buy energy at even lower rates to pre-sanctions Germany. Further; their economy isn't trying to do as many things as Western ones are. For instance, something like 25% of US expenditure is on personal transportation. Another almost 20% on again for emphasis PERSONAL health care costs, which in part is due to the effects of everyone driving and nobody walking or catching public transport. Imagine if in your calculation of GDP you factored in these enormous wastes into the US calculation, compared to Russia, which has far more subways, buses, trams etc. which are all drastically more efficient from a cost (GDP) perspective, but achieve the same outcome; workforce mobility.
Russia has a lower GDP than Italy, but what makes Russia’s performance even worse is that it’s output is mostly commodities and the other sectors are very week compared to countries with similar GDP’s.
>I don't remember exactly where I heard it but the Russian economy is reportedly the equivalent of NY State.
1) NY State has a full production cycle of space rockets?
2) NY State has a full production cycle of nuclear ships and warships?
3)NY State has a full production cycle of development and production Fifth-generation fighter?
4) NY State produce 90% of all steel produced in the USA?
5) NY State produces as much aluminum as the USA+Canada?
If the answer is yes, then of course your statement is correct. I can extend the list, but honestly, I'm just too lazy.
in short you did not answer the question but went on a tangent about university research
He outflanked the Question 😂
Personally I don't think the big problem is Russian armor design lagging behind the west, although it very well could be in at least some aspects, the problem is that their ability to actually produce AFVs has fallen well behind their design ambitions. It's way easier to have an ambitious modern design, and by all accounts the T-14 is just that, than it is to tool up a factory to build it, after all, hence why they only have a handful of prototypes/LRIPs of it that probably don't even have fully functional electronics suites, and Russia's lacking armor infrastructure seems to extend well beyond the tank factories themselves.
The problem they have is a few people just shamelessly stealing all the funding and putting it in their pockets.
Russia has lost nearly all of their ability to manufacture anything, even stuff countries like Vietnam consider low end.
I think one thing a few commenters are missing in the context of 'tooling up' is economic priorities. Say what you will about the decision making processes in Moscow, and who is or isn't in charge of / profits from their various sectors, there are two very key sectors they were able to "tool up" in the last 20 years. Agriculture and energy. I'd argue that without those, their economy would be an absolute basket case, yet instead it seems to have been at least somewhat resilient to Western sanctions. I'd posit that without these sectors bringing in foreign capital they wouldn't have any capacity at all to bring in tooling for their arms industry. So the point is kind of moot anyway.
@@jamesrowlands8971 depending so heavily on resource extraction is is the sign of Russia’s backwards slide. You’re right, being a major producer of oil and exporter of food has left them stranded but alive indefinitely.
@@kokofan50 my point is what was their option? Have no foreign income and become like North Korea?
This question was already answerable with a yes in the 1980s but yall said we were crazy.
Headline should be changed, that's all I am gonna say
Very interesting interview (& well balanced opinions as well), thanks!
They're using larger calibers, autoloader and ERA. The newest in development western tanks...use larger calibers, autoloaders and optionally ERA. They also where the first with unmanned turrets?
Weird to argue they're falling behind.
Very interesting.
Thank you gentlemen.
Russia is more propaganda and less technology.
'The West'™ is more propaganda and less technology. Fight me
Love this channel but this one was waaaay off point. From the start I thought it was a weird choice of a guest expert on a topic of Russian tank design and I was right - the discussion had nothing in common with the topic of a video, not even close. What adds more insult to injury - it was an interesting discussion indeed, but not what it says on the label of this video. Hate to do it, but it is a thumbs down on this video, sorry.
Well the Armada seems like a great tank in theory at least, but they dont have the capability to manufacture or seemingly to pay to equip the Armee.
He does have a point, you have to keep in mind that unsw canberra is adfa so its very likely his former group are all now officers
Just regarding the headline question, the short answer is:
Somewhat !
But the real problem is the development/production quality and ability.
(Personally I do not regard it as a problem 🙂 )
I wish Russia had T-14 Armata tanks back at the start of WW1
Always appreciate the content here. This was a stimulating discussion. However, discussing Russian armour design without referencing a single model or single competing model seems a bit odd. Perhaps this video would have been better titled, "Russian vs Western Research Models". This is a humble suggestion, obviously I greatly value the content created here and the time and insights of the contributor.
I don’t think anyone will dispute Russian ERA tech is leagues ahead of most of NATO. But they don’t field much of it. Their active protection systems are pretty effective. None have them have deployed at scale.
Their production and procurement just isn’t there.
What do you mean? Nearly all Russia tanks use Kontakt-5, but Relikt is limited to the T-80BVM and the T-90M.
@@voidtempering8700 There are hundreds of Russian tanks with only Kontakt 1 from Soviet times. There are some that don't even have that. There are also the cases of empty ERA boxes and bags which is still very common. Some were sold on the black market, others were never replaced after being depleted.
Their tank fleet is nowhere near full deployment of even Kontakt 5.
@@yoloman3607 Not full deployment, because not all T-72s can equip Kontakt-5, but the majority of T-72b3s seen, the tank which has Kontakt-5, has had it equipped on Ukraine.
@@voidtempering8700 Nearly any soviet tank can equip Kontakt ERA, it isn't hard at all to install. It's just they don't have enough for all their tanks.
The content of this video is interesting if you're insterested in the dynamics of competitive capitalism vs monolithic authoritarianism and how it might explain Rsssian innovativeness falling behind, but that's not the title of this video or how the ciscussion supposedly started.
I am open for title suggestion that cover the content of the video and also attract viewers.
Professor Hazell's insights are probably correct but the question of "Russian Armor Design" was not covered. Let me do so. 3000 Russian MBTs have been blown to bits in Ukraine. Uralvagonzavod, Russia's largest tank plant, is still building T-72B3s. T-90 tanks were being built on the same production line and supposedly are better in terms of protection. Well a good design team could throw an active protection on a T-90M and have something adequate 9 months into a war. Seriously any 9 year old boy could have slapped APS on a T-90M one week into this war. Where are the Russian Designers? Maybe they left Russia to escape being mobilized? WTF??????
Russian armor has always been fatally flawed in that they are developed by engineers who don't understand how tanks are fought. Emphasis on small size over fight ability is simply idiotic
I don't think Russian armour 'design' is so much at fault. The concept of the T14 Armata is very sound along with the list of features it is designed around. The problem seems to be more in terms of Russian financial and manufacturing capabilities. On paper the Armata should have been the design on which many existing Russian military vehicles would have been based on. In reality the Russians have only been able to manufacture a relative few of the full MBT version in the years since its announcement. This has been down to it being difficult to produce (and therefore costly) as well as being too expensive for the current Russian economy to support in terms of a wide mobilisation. Derivative vehicles would have the same kind of issues which is most likely why nobody has seen any of them outside of prototypes.
There is also a skewed viewpoint due to how the Russian armed forces have performed in Ukraine. Issues from the lack of basic equipment (with troops being encouraged to buy their own where possible), through to a lack of training, poor logistics, etcetera tend to paint Russian equipment as being of poor quality. Really it comes down to that it is being used (and oftain maintained) poorly which kind of points to the fact that the Russian army has a lot of more fundemental issues to fix than re-designing its equipment.
I think academics should not be commenting of practical engineering and design. Other than giving design engineers the basic tool they need to live in the real world. There are those who do and then there are those who cannot do, so they teach.
I thought the video was great. However, the title is rather misleading. I was expecting a discussion of armour tech with plenty of analysis and at least some data. The video ended up being mostly on the different academic environments in the east and west, with some speculation but very little data to back anything up. It was still interesting but not really what I came to the video for.
Argument about universities doesn't hold water in the context of cold war period. Soviet University system was even less competitive and they achieved results in government lab. It's just a matter of resources, which dwindled after Soviet collapse.
They are clearly far behind the West and have been since thermal sights became common on NATO tanks in the mid to late 80s.
There is also no question that the most common modern NATO tanks like the Leopard 2A5 (and later) and the M1A2 would crush the T-72B3/B3M (not least due to the far superior situational awareness they have due to their command thermal sights, which the T-72B3/B3M lacks).
I think the biggest problem of russian tanks are the circle autoloader and the lack of blow out pannels.
RedEffects does a video in which he presents and improved Russian tank that uses a turret bustle for ammunition storage with blow out panels and a cassette type auto loader.
It was found that the tank actually also had a considerably lower profile since the crew were no longer on top of the ammunition. (as well as safety)
-The other problem with Russian tanks is the poor elevation and depression (11 and -5) compared to western tanks (20 an -10) that makes them unsuitable for mountains and urban fighting. This could be dealt with in part by adjustable hydropneumatic suspension.
@@williamzk9083 Good points. A lot of people overlook elevation of main weapon systems. The low profile of Russian armor is what limits the elevation range .
How does one calculate the trade off?
Open terrain you want a lower profile. Elevation is not usually an issue.
Urban combat, you want elevation of the main gun to better be able to support and protect yourself.
It is all relative to the situation and the Tank Commander has to decide how to manage the advantage and limits of his track.
I think urban warfare and the challenges and benefits of close combat infantry support is why the T-15 was built. It has the elevation and rapid rate of heavy fire need for the direct up close support of infantry in an Urban combat settings. Twin grenade launchers on some, everyone protected in a compartment in the hull.
Does anyone in NATO have anything like it?
Not that I have seem.
IMHO
Russian tanks have horrible reverse speed. 4/5 km/h. It is a huge weakness.
"is Russian armor falling behind"? Of course, just look how obsolete their tanks are, they are just appearance and the T-14 that is already supposed "combat ready" can barely be being seen in parades
Turns out having poorly led tightly packed tanks with crews sitting on top of loaded with HE shells carousels 🎠 on a battlefield filled with top down attack weapons is a receipt for disaster.
What was this???
Almost nothing to do with the title
It would be better if some universities avoided the soft faculties that create student radicalism and activism for the sake of personal significance. It's such a waste of time.
A University is precisely the unity of the diverse.
Remember that students are in essence paying customers on these universities.
This professor should speak without worrying about offending anyone 🙄 He speaks on this subject like he's walking on egg shells. It's weird! What happened with the subject on Russian armor???? You should hit up Chris Cappy from the Task and Purpose channel.
Funny I listen to this video while I'm literally playing Il-2 1946 :-).
The Soviet era and Russian weapons always were behind the west. Mechanically they were relatively good but they were so far behind the west in electrical engineering they looked like something from the second world war or in the eighties from the sixties. That is why they had the overwhelming force tactics.
It is not true. When the T-64B appeared, it was in many ways superior to NATO tanks, even in the fire control system. As always, propaganda is everywhere, even in the West. I would like to see NATO vehicles of the 3rd generation in a real battle, fighting against the Arabs with the help of the Air Force does not count. Of the third generation vehicles, only Soviet/Russian tanks are fighting all over the world.
@@dungeonmaster132 read about the Arab Israeli wars you uneducated troll. You might actually learn a thing or two Slightly upgraded Sherman's destroyed the T-55, the T-64 like the T-14 just got a lot of overrated press after the first one was researched by NATO it turned out to be crappy optics and suffering from substandard components like all Soviet Russian equipment. And still all have non functional and technically inferior electronics.
@@jacksonteller1337 Only you are not educated here. I would read about the 1A33 system, which stood on the T-64B and T-80B, at one time it was a breakthrough, there are whole articles on this topic. It was better than the Leopard and the M-60, I'm not talking about the Chieftain at all. And what does Sherman and T-55 have to do with it?In Iraq, as far as I remember, the T-55 knocked out the Challenger 2 through the lower part and what? The late Kharkov and Tagil experimental machines had a digital automated fire control system, if not for the collapse of the USSR, it would have equaled the West in this direction, after all, they could make computers for spacecraft.
@@jacksonteller1337 Yeah, I'm amazed at the rottenness of our media. When a correspondent on the air says something inconvenient from the front line, then they abruptly turn him off and say that the connection has disappeared, this has been observed for the last 2 weeks, but of course the Russians are evil. Read about the run-in of captured NATO tanks at the Kubinka training ground in the USSR. You will see how disappointed the designers of the USSR were in this technique, especially in the British one.
Lmao, NATO only caught up in the late 80s.
Russian doctrine has always been more quantity over quality so yeah, I reckon it is behind a bit.
Intriguing.
A front line MBT needs several things that Russian tanks (except certain variants of the T-90 & T-14) lack (3rd gen independent sights for commander & gunner, fire on the move capability, decent reverse speed, remote ammo. storage) most importantly these days is an active protection system. Also will be important how Russia circumvents current embargo to gets the high tech. technology needed for their most advanced weapon systems.
for fire on the move capability, please search for Algerian t90s...there are a few videos of them blazing down the desert hitting targets
"Also will be important how Russia circumvents current embargo to gets the high tech. technology needed for their most advanced weapon systems."
They BUILD THEM THEMSELVES. As you would know if you had the slightest knowledge of the matter.
Their military has been 100% selfsufficient since 2018 when their new chipfab outside of Moscow went into massproduction. Funny how people manage to selectively forget that Russia is one of 3 nations fully capable of making their own chipfabs in the world, along with Holland and just recently, China.
"most importantly these days is an active protection system."
You mean like western tanks do not have?
"(3rd gen independent sights for commander & gunner, fire on the move capability"
Uh-huh... Did you completely ignore the upgrade Russia has been doing to replace all foreignmade electronics since 2011?
Not that Russian tanks didn't already have that ability, but you seem to have chosen to miss that.
"decent reverse speed, remote ammo. storage"
If you want decent reverse speed, your choice is the Strv-103. Oh wait, no longer in service, oops.
And remote ammostorage? Yeah, that's nice, but it's not standard because it is not automatically superior outside of your mind.
@@hippoace From my original comment.. (except certain variants of the T-90 & T-14)🙄
@@DIREWOLFx75 True to an extent. Bottom line much of the Russia equipment captured or destroyed in the Ukrainian conflict contains Western tech.. The use of S-300's as SSM's (not in intended SAM role) and indiscriminate use of Iranian kamikaze drones hints of desperation. Also important to note 100's of thousands of the best & brightest are leaving the country and those who can't get out are being drafted. Meaning a distinct loss of man/brainpower to build high-tech. weapons.
so what is reverse speed of t14?
I look at Russian armor design the same way I look at Chinese RC cars. You're buying a base to build from, but dear god don't trust the stock configuration. It will not last. It will do "just good enough" for a while, but any sort of yeehaw or extreme demands are going to murder it... as will time. The idea is to get it and just ground up refit, and that seems to be what a lot of nations end up doing. They've each got their own variant and some of those are quite nice. Maybe that's down to not leaving them abandoned for years at a time with no servicing...
Where are the premium RC parts manufactured if not in China?
@@jamesrowlands8971 Oh you are paying for quality control to be done when you buy the premium. The bargain branded chinese RC just is... like... "hey it's a solid chance this wont suck" and you go from there. There are some brands made in USA etc but they are somewhat rare and some even do the whole "assembled in" and just sort of hope you'll think the two words mean same thing.
*_I feel like tanks are pretty much like they were back at various phases of WW2:_*
-The British tanks are few in number due to peace, they are decent but bloody expensive.
-The German tanks are decent but overengineered (Leopard repair and maintenance is brutal as far as I heard, manufacturing takes a long time as well and they are pretty pricey).
-US tanks are task-based, engineered to work well with other parts of the army as well as engineered around the crew, not the way around, comfy and gets the job done.
-French tanks are generally pretty good, the only way they may fail against its possible foes would be a leadership + morale issue.
-Russian tanks are seemingly good on paper but are dog poop due to poor manufacture and/or maintenance, the engineer did not give a damn about the crew either, cramped deathtraps you won't get out of after a hit unless you are extremely lucky and your ammo does not cook off. I do not envy the Ukrainian and Russian dudes who have to man these things!
Some things never change, like doctrine and the usual level of corruption of a country.
I think you have a theory there and then you try to bend reality to fit said theory:
-WW2 British tank design was dogshit, until basically the Centurion every single tank was years behind any other major country. I do think they got much better in that regard since then. Their tank doctrine was also useless.
-The French had some capable, if overcomplicated and unreliable tanks as well as huge numbers of crap, useless ones, and luckily they also got much better. They had almost no concept of using tanks at all, one of the main reasons why these failed.
-The main problem of Russia is that they are trying to maintain an army worthy of a world power with an abysmal economy, and then still manage to surprise everyone when they fail at that. Add to this the terrible doctrine, command etc. and you have a failing army that gets beaten by Ukraine. Meanwhile, said Ukrainians manage to use the same weapons (or the often outdated stuff they get) much, much more efficiently. Russia is the one that fell off a cliff with their tanks compared to WW2, not necessarily because of their inherent quality or lack thereof, but rather because they cannot support them at any level. The weakness of the equipment is overemphasized because it is a concrete thing most people can fathom, unlike the 'soft' issues that are far more important.
Doctrine does change, luckily, except for those countries that cannot evolve- and then they lose hard against a country that was supposed to be finished the second they rolled over the border.
@@FeherMate You overthink it, I know correlation is not relation and this was simply something silly but you took it way too seriously. Also you never mentioned the German tanks and their problems. Don't be a wehraboo and there's a lot more to this topic. I don't know if this is elitism or gatekeeping, but don't do it, mate!
@@MrPapamaci88 I did not mention it because I agreed with your description of them (individually decent but overengineered seems fair to me). Why would I repeat an argument with which I agree? Throwing around words like "elitism", "wehraboo" or "gatekeeping" without even trying to argue or asking why I wrote what I wrote, while simultaneously saying it was just a silly idea is both pretty confusing and provocative...
Leopard is a lot more repairable compared to Russian tanks. The whole engine can be swapped in the field in a short time.
Of course, we will forget about the creation of the first tank with multilayer armor in the USSR and the attempt to create super-armored low-power monsters in the USSR in the 50s in order to protect the crew as much as possible.
Soviet tanks were always about quantity. They did not care about the safety of the crew and that leads to different design choices and inferior quality. Besides that, current day innovation is about information technology. Look at how the Soviets developed their IT industry and you have another great reason why their quality is inferior.
That's just a bunch of crap lol
M60 was far worse armored than T-64 or T-72- by that logic Americans didn't care about crew safety
This is absolute bullshit.
When the west was making tank designs with no armor at all the soviets created the T-64 with the main intent to protect the crew.
The reason soviet tanks used a carrousel autoloader was to make the tanks smaller and put the ammunition on the lowest part of the tank wich is the least likely to be hit.
The m60 has it's main ammorack in the turret back with no protection at all.
Please unpack this thought more?
@@kucingmiumiu854 its just repackaged nazi 'asian hordes zerg rushing' trope
@@phunkracy exactly. There was actually some quite hard science behind the Soviet emphasis on numerical superiority. Localised numerical superiority repeatedly proved the decisive factor in the largest battles of WW2. It's not about having inferior quality. It's about giving your troops the greatest chance to win by being able to bring more weapons to bear on the enemy than the other way around. And it's deliberately misrepresented by their foes for propaganda purposes.
Well the Armata is a peach, isn't it? Had everybody freaking nervous because of the advanced design... but they forgot Russia needs 7 years to design, takes 11 years to build 3 prototypes, takes another 4 years to build a first preproduction model and another 3 years to build another 3 preproduction models, after 7 years the first production model and after 5 years a first batch of five, of which 7 don't have ammunition, of which 4 don't have spare parts, of which 11 don't have electronics, of which 9 don't have a trained crew, of which only one gets fielded in the special military disaster, of which 4 are abandonned, of which 6 are used by the Ukrainians against the Russians.
So it is a brilliant design which took a 117 year to field - 37 pieces and deliver 9 to the enemy.
Half way through and nothing about armor just discussion of universities. Maybe hire an editor?
Now 90% through. Thumbs down.
And what did this have to do with Armor?
Of course it is. The T-14 looks like a wooden mock up. Somethings off about that tank.
I loved the tall, but i feel that it didn't really touch the matter at hand. Lot of talk about universities and russia's "brain problems", but not much on tank design and development. I feel that this one missed the mark, unfortunately.
He actually illustrated a problem that I don't think he intended to. He's positing the idea that Russian university professors are teaching too much, and that takes time away from potential research. That is how university professors should be. Their purpose is to teach, not research. That's why they're at a university.
Thats not correct. Professors are no Teachers. Beeing a University Professor usually comes with research u have to do. Otherwise they would stagnate on old knowledge. They are expected to create new knowledge and teach new students. Its a balance.
No, they‘re also there to lead groups of researchers to study and develop in the public interest, in contrast to the private sector. They also need to verify other researchers findings by trying to reproduce their experiments.
So many discussions on that topic. Some people are not suited to teaching at all. My supervisor can't explain shit, but he is a brilliant scientist. Some people are great at teaching but they are not creative and concentrated on the field of research to really be brilliant and effective. A great scientist and professor Peter Kapitsa claimed that teaching helps you to learn and improve your professional skills as a scientist. So... who nows what the answer is.
Research is the point.
Teaching pays for it.
TLDR: America has so much money that they can afford to outsource defense research to universities in other countries. Russia does not have much money. This (money) affects armour development.
Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as always.
If anything I would say they had been falling behind since the end of the Cold War, and have been catching up in recent years with the advent of the T14, and to a lesser extent, the latest T90 variants. Their electronics, particularly sensor and targeting components, remains markedly inferior to Western standards, and this is increasingly more important an aspect than raw firepower and protection
Simple answer, yes it has there is no real argument against it, yes they have made good tanks, but probably not since the late 70’s early 80’s, and yes they made the T-14 but there’s less then 100 models that have been seen. And even their most advanced tanks in Ukraine the T-80, T-80BVM, T-72B3/B3M, T-90A, T-90M have major design flaws that haven’t really been fixed since they’ve been made. I’m not saying western tanks are so much better then Russian, it’s the quality of western tech and the much more lax environment that you don’t have a “gun” pointed at their head
Very interesting.
Hello from Newcastle NSW