Let’s hope they never meet in battle.... ever.

@RedEffectChannel

6 жыл бұрын

Totally!

@zrbbg9639

6 жыл бұрын

Matsimus They will get nuked before they do.

@RaV591

6 жыл бұрын

Matsimus fancy seeing you here

@joshualopes9754

6 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@RomanianReaver

6 жыл бұрын

The Russians may supply some to India and I believe China and if China gets some they'll make a copy you can bet your ass so they may meet in battle just not directly via Russia v US .

sorry but i prefered The Bob Semple tank

@themeddite2935

5 жыл бұрын

color red it was too frightening they had to get rid of it

@scorpionx2466

5 жыл бұрын

The Japanese never invaded new Zealand and Australia because of the Bob semple

@rouymalic4463

5 жыл бұрын

@@scorpionx2466 no because of Emu bandits

@eminhalilovic3743

5 жыл бұрын

And big bob

@Holamuybuenas13

5 жыл бұрын

I heard that that tank could easly beat a heavy tiger battalion + 2 maus (ironic)

your comment at the end about combined arms winning the fight instead of just tank on tank is 100 percent spot on. Great job

@anguswaterhouse9255

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, t-14 is overall a good bit better, but that won’t matter when it’s destroyed in the repair depot by a HIMARS strike

“no one is invincible in war and conflicts everyone dies”

@johnanderson5500

4 жыл бұрын

FUBAR

@yeeterdeleter6306

4 жыл бұрын

The question is who dies less and still has more people ready to die

@olddog6658

4 жыл бұрын

Not quite everyone, I'm still here...

@YoRHaUnit2Babe

4 жыл бұрын

Correct

@LalkeBanditen

4 жыл бұрын

@@mistermarius3815 But how will i chase chicks and slap those cheeks if i am dead and hero?

90 percent of the time the tank that sees the other tank first wins.

@craigscott5661

4 жыл бұрын

It’s actually 90% of the time the tank that’s shoots first wins. But I guess that’s pretty much the same thing.

@calebh7902

4 жыл бұрын

Yea ifnyoure playing battlefield

@BuiltForSomethingElse29

4 жыл бұрын

Not true.

@maxim6088

4 жыл бұрын

Well, Abrams will knock out the gun no problem, but the people in Armata will survive and drive away

@OverlordAntares

4 жыл бұрын

Battle of 73 easting was a good example. If my memory serves correct, the Abrams spotted and fired first, knocking out a ton of tanks in the beginning seconds of the battle.

American here. That being said, wholly appreciate your unbiased objectivity, the lack thereof has turned other channels into nationalistic, testosterone filled pissing contest. Keep up the great work!

@zrbbg9639

6 жыл бұрын

Are you talking to the video or to some of the commentators?

@Maxfr8

6 жыл бұрын

And by unbiased you mean biased.

@user-md5vb4lw1t

6 жыл бұрын

There's no escaping bias but the question is, to what extent? This one, you are more under the influence of the slavic accent then in his actual objectivity.

@jaylm4112

6 жыл бұрын

Свевлад Велеслав very wise.. I'm American and I stay completely in bias but ppl attack me because of it.. I don't want to have any war but if a Russian American war starts.. it will force others to take sides I don't want that because the killing to spread. And this East versus West thing.. my wife's grandfather and mine both fought in world war 2 things have changed. But I still look at Brittan and Russia, as allies. Maybe I'm stupid.

@franksmith7335

5 жыл бұрын

Jay M the Russians were never are allies they needed our help in World War II because they would havebeen defeated bye the Nazis they were still almost defeated with our help but they were never our allies their communist scumbags when they need are help there friends but after the war death to the imperialist real nice Russia go f***yourself

Nope the Abrams cannot beat it because the armata is invisible, you can't find it anywhere

@bernhardstil6128

2 жыл бұрын

Russia - Tanks that will join the Airforce after being hit, Tanks that are invisible, Tanks with reactive armor that does not react All in all they are well prepared to scare the world into never attacking them - but at the same time they have to hope they are never tested. And now we see why.

@philmybutup4759

Жыл бұрын

@@bernhardstil6128 nah we should be scared of russias military. Their navy ships can quickly convert into submarines. And no that’s not cardboard in the space where their tanks ERA should be. It’s a new composite that has 2000mm of armor

@bernhardstil6128

Жыл бұрын

@@philmybutup4759 man I knew it. Everyone gangster until the convertible Navy shows up.

Two facts from an old Armor Officer (25 years active duty) 1) The decisive factor is the level of crew training - see the WW2 Germans vs Russians and the Israelis vs the Arabs (the updated M4's should have had no chance against T-55's and T-62's) not the technology 2) Tank's don't fight duels, they fight as part of a combined arms team including artillery, infantry ATGMs and rockets, infantry tank killer teams, engineers (think mines and other obstacles), attack aviation, close air support, naval gun fire, etc, etc. So imagining a one on one shootout is mental masturbation, it ain't gonna happen.

@artiemiranda9404

4 жыл бұрын

ROBERT NABORNEY - in the Army or Marine Corps??

@kevd9825

4 жыл бұрын

mental masturbation? LOL

@dannyjackson3879

4 жыл бұрын

ROBERT NABORNEY THANK YOU FOR YOU SERVICE. I agree with everything you say. My experience in the US Army working with weapons that require a TSBI is that we never publish accurate ratings on anything and having heard about numerous different russian products and upgrades, they never deliver on capabilities or in many cases they scrap the entire program as financially not achievable.

@UndeadDjingis

4 жыл бұрын

Those are such hollow statemants about war (and even the purpose of this video in particular). He clearly stated in the video that tanks don't fight one on one, but are just a small part of the fighting forces and the video was just a comparison between the two new rivaling tanks. I am not an officer, I was a soldier in an airforce, and neither do I have 25 years of experience, but even I realize saying that the decisive factor is crew training is wrong, especially considering your own examples. At no point during WW2 was the Red Army better trained than the Whermacht, but what the Russians lacked in training they made up for with "better" logistics, equipment and just all around circumstances for winning the war. The six Days war is also a terrible example, as the Arabs simply lacked everything from trained soldiers and modern equipment to competent leadership and coordination. A better example of the importance of training would be when Germany first invaded France. France had better equipment and were heavily fortified, but still lost most, if not all, battles during the first few months. But even then, training was just one of many factors, all of which were equally important deciding the outcome of the invasion. If I am wrong, please, tell me why, as I am rather interested in the subjects at hand.

@johnkendall6962

4 жыл бұрын

@@UndeadDjingis I think you too are basically saying the same thing. He was saying better tactics and training plus motivated soldiers gave the Israel the advantage even if their tanks were not as good. In the WW2 the Soviets overwhelmed the Germans but the Germans probably had the edge on tactics and the Panther and Tiger 2 were probably the wars best tanks but tanks need fuel and trained crews. By the end of the war Germany was running out of both. Having better equipment does not ensure victory.

Forget the other tanks! Worry about the swarms of ATGM's being launched by all types of platforms.

@jajsamurai

5 жыл бұрын

the trophy active protection system should make anti tank guided missiles largely irrelevant. atgms have reigned supreme for a while, but it looks like that is coming to an end. I would expect tank on tank engagements and aircraft on tank engagements to become more common as atgms become less and less effective due to active protection systems that are now coming on line. it will be a competition for a while with missile developers looking for new technology to beat the active defenses, and the active defense system developers working to counter those new tricks. We will have to wait and see who comes out ahead, but for now it looks like the active defenses are winning that battle.

@alliciahudson6271

5 жыл бұрын

@@jajsamurai and what if it shooted simultaneusly ??

@alliciahudson6271

5 жыл бұрын

@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

@gothamgoon4237

5 жыл бұрын

@@jajsamurai And exactly how many ATGM's can the Trophy system defend against and last out? How many can it defeat simultaneously? If it is faced with an enemy infantry company armed to the teeth with ATGM's, can it stop 100 ATGM's coming at it from all directions? I would say not. That's really the point people are making. Can one very expensive weapon system like a tank defeat multiple, relatively cheap weapon systems like hand held ATGM's? Which one is the more cost effective? Where do you draw the line when it comes to the cost of a tank to survive. Is a crew of four people really worth that much to keep alive? Or is it much more cost effective to just arm a 100 men with ATGM's and loose half of them to one tank?

@jajsamurai

5 жыл бұрын

@@gothamgoon4237 "is it much more cost effective to just arm a 100 men with ATGM's and loose half of them to one tank?" You appear to have missed part of my statement as I already acknowledged this possibility. I said this: "it will be a competition for a while with missile developers looking for new technology to beat the active defenses, and the active defense system developers working to counter those new tricks. We will have to wait and see who comes out ahead, but for now it looks like the active defenses are winning that battle." I said FOR NOW the atgms appear to be losing. That could change as new tactics and new missiles come out. Certainly swarming missiles would be one tactic they could try in order to counter anti missile systems. Then the active defense system manufacturers will need to TRY to counter that. Maybe they can do it, and maybe they cant. You are however ignoring the fact that a single tank isn't going to be sitting at the bottom of a valley in the open while a hundred infantry surround it from every side. Tanks operate generally in large formations and often have infantry support. So while multiple atgm's launched at a single tank at once would likely succeed, do you have ANY idea how HARD it would be to actually do that in live combat while multiple tanks fire at you with heavy machine guns, high explosive 120 mm rounds, grapeshot rounds, and morters? Add in the likely support of enemy infantry with rifles, squad machine guns, grenade launchers and morters and you should be able to see that getting multiple people to stick their heads up at the same time is pretty hard. You also need to target the same tank, without screwing up and targeting some OTHER tank which would be pretty difficult under stress. Well trained troops can do it, but it wont be easy and it likely wont work every time. Add in the fact that the time you spend coordinating strikes against the tanks is time you DONT spend fighting back against enemy infantry and this becomes a really tough problem. If the enemy is spending most of his time and energy trying to take out your tanks then that opens up opportunities for your infantry to go on offense while largely unengaged. You are also looking at this in a purely economic sense. It may actually cost less to sacrifice 20 soldiers to take out a tank. However long term this destroys the effectiveness of your army. You CANNOT send soldiers out on what amounts to suicide missions very often before moral plunges and combat effectiveness drops through the floor. Look at the iraq war as an example. Many units simply left their weapons and ran away, or even sought out american troops and proactively surrendered to avoid fighting. Soldiers are not machines, nor are they chess pieces on a board. They are people, and they have all the same survival instincts YOU have. If you tell soldiers that its CHEAPER to let 50 of them die than to invest in a decent tank, they will shoot you in the back in a dark ally somewhere, or just go awol. Also, just on cost alone your exaggerated scenario would not work. A good tank costs up to 10 million, while a good atgm costs up to 200,000. That means 100 atgms would cost MORE than the tank does.

Tanks: we about to throw down ATGMs: stoopid I’m not gonna let you get the chance

@Koyomix86

3 жыл бұрын

Trophy APS: yeah no

@MostlyPennyCat

3 жыл бұрын

Can Trophy stop 1000lb bombs? Because I reckon in a real shooting war tanks will just be target practise for fighter bombers.

@belgianfried

2 жыл бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat SPAAGs exist

@MostlyPennyCat

2 жыл бұрын

@@belgianfried As do cruise missiles, which will spot and kill any type of SHORADS I think. Think about it, you need to kill the enemy ground forces. Planes beat tanks But SAMs and AAAs beat planes So winning is entirely dependent on killing enemy A2AD Which you can't do with planes or tanks without horrific losses So you make stand off weapons to do it instead Which are cheap, plentiful and you don't care how many 'die' And with modern tech they swarm, work together.

@chilltrooper9695

2 жыл бұрын

T14 armata has many more ways of Defending itself against atgms compared to that of the Abrams the Abrams is a bit limited on the defensive side against atgms

"but are expected to, by 2020." well...

@MidwestDIY

3 жыл бұрын

2021 T-14 was always been a gimmick for TV show, 95% of Russian tanks are T-72 and older, only ~300 are T-90 (which are updated T-72)

@OninDynamics

3 жыл бұрын

@@MidwestDIY well... i guess that's fear down for now

@St.Matthew422

3 жыл бұрын

@@MidwestDIY Oh no, look like we found an american nacionalist that doesnt like better tanks than the 1990 Abrams, cuz abrams need to be OP

@sloptek1807

3 жыл бұрын

@@St.Matthew422 He's right, modern Russia doesn't have USSR's economy, russians didn't manage to equip even a single battalion with T 14s

@MrMurder333666

3 жыл бұрын

@@sloptek1807 you Know you are right, but that still Doesnt disprove the fact that the t14 is an incredible tank

Another advantage the Abrams SEP III holds over the Armata is the years of use and battle-tested experience of the Abrams platform. This is a distinct advantage and essentially irreplaceable for tank crews. The first time Armata sees actual combat Russian crews will learn a lot about what it can and can’t do on the battlefield IMHO. Thanks for your work!

@_Reddee_

Жыл бұрын

this is only true for abrams vs infantry, as the only tank combat the abrams has seen was against export first generation t 72s

@johnatback2343

Жыл бұрын

@@_Reddee_not really it’s was also t 90 during some clashes(not talking about Iraq

@peterwilson5528

Жыл бұрын

Well I would think that the Abrams has far more to fear from the first time an Alligator spots it than coming up against an Armata. then of course there all those Javelin that Russian forces have captured and they are looking forward to using them against an Abrams.

@Livewyr7

Жыл бұрын

​@Peter Wilson wishful thinking that an Ka-52 would be in the air if Russia was meeting Abrams. USA knows how to actually do shock & Awe and also establish air dominance.

@thechroniclegamer4285

10 ай бұрын

@@johnatback2343T-90 is just a T-72 Variant

May the best tank crew win.

@RealUMGaming

6 жыл бұрын

Rafael Lastra com That is very true. Capabilities of a tank also largely depend on crew.

@Honkler270

6 жыл бұрын

yeah, but that isnt true all of the time like during the war in iraq when battle tested t-72 crews faced Us "fresh" Crews but due to teh handicap of range and aiming capabilities of the t-72 most where destroyed to no abrams downed.

@cav1stlt922

6 жыл бұрын

I think you meant to say "... faced US fresh crews...", that was where you were wrong!!! US armors spend more time training than most other countries, constantly engaging in mock battles against each other as in Graf and NTC. Echo Troop 2/2 that fought and won in Easting 73 had live fire gunnery exercises and FTXs often, I know as I was with them in Germany before Easting 73; we spend so little time in our barracks in Bamberg and out in the fields much of the time! Easting's meeting engagement proved all those training paid off big time!!! Meanwhile, many other countries simply do not have the budgets or the resources that America has, thus they don't get to live fire or realistic training as often, as case in point, the Republican Guards! Even the Russian did not have the same kind of training budgets now to match ours... maybe the Chinese, not sure. South Korea and Japan would be the other countries that trained and live fire constantly though!!! We might not have been 'seasoned' during our initial engagements but surely are not 'fresh crew' in terms of inexperienced.

@CsehCsaba

6 жыл бұрын

sad that the t-14 armata platform is able to be remote controlled :) chess mat

@derrickstorm6976

6 жыл бұрын

Let's not please

Abrams is going on 40 years. Awesome design .

@donavonrobbins1908

4 жыл бұрын

Yup. Simple but highly effective design. Why change it? Just upgrade components as technology allows. Resources and infrastructure already in place to support it, would have to be changed to something else.

@SulfurousJesus

4 жыл бұрын

The M1A2 SEP v3 just came out 2 years ago, calling the abrams 40 years old is pretty disengenious when the only similarity between the original and the most current model is the hull itself, everything else on the tank has changed rapidly with the times. The current version of the Abrams is the most advanced tank in the world bar none.

@donavonrobbins1908

4 жыл бұрын

@@SulfurousJesus agreed. That's what made it such a nice design. It was a modular/upgradeable design. Used the best metallurgy of it's day, which is still relevant. Forged plates, rather than a brittle, casting of a teacup.

@splendid9910

4 жыл бұрын

Though it's design is verry good, as they say, nothing lasts forever, well exept for the fabric of the universe

@ozzy7763

4 жыл бұрын

Damjan Sazdovski true.

T-14:I am king! *A-10 Would like to know your location*

@rasosteva

4 жыл бұрын

SU:35: Nice to hear that

@aceofthesky1247

4 жыл бұрын

@@rasosteva F-16/F-18/(whatever is in use now Im pretty sure tomcats are being phased out, correct me if im wrong) Good to see you Su:35, how's about we fox 3 you there

@ThaSavageGirl95

4 жыл бұрын

We will just buy a gripen or two, along with migflug.com/jetflights/usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison/

@BeenuZz

4 жыл бұрын

A-10? That 70's plane? Allow me to laugh. It is only good against 3rd world countries with no aa def

@ThaSavageGirl95

4 жыл бұрын

@@BeenuZz Irrelevant. We will nuke each other to shit before we have a fcking chance to het off the ground so stfu doofus. A10 is anti tank, we will ROCK YOU.

I have two things to say about that. Never underestimate your enemy. The United States and Russia are not enemies.

@robertsansone1680

4 жыл бұрын

I wish that the U.S. & Russia were not enemies, but I'm afraid that stupid politicians have made it so. Please don't misunderstand. I am a patriotic American who comes from a military family but I see no reason for the U.S. Russia frictions. (In other words, I'm no Liberal) Both the Republicans & Democrats are idiots on this issue in my opinion.

@richardwoeckener7936

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertsansone1680 i totally agree... WELL SAID! ...

@robertsansone1680

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardwoeckener7936 I wish our politicians would pick up a history book. once in a while. Thanks for your reply, Bob

@namesurname624

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertsansone1680 i am on the other side of the barricades, but i share your feelings comrade. hopefully we will unite against china in the future.

@heckleypanes4988

4 жыл бұрын

@@namesurname624 Winnie the pooh uses the same tactics as the Soviets just with infantry instead of tanks

T-14 does not need allot of turret armor as it's made of stalinium

@wrayday7149

5 жыл бұрын

Good thing he sent all those dissidents to the gulags to make the armor ahead of time to ensure the survival of Mother Russia.

@mistermoss408

5 жыл бұрын

Communism banned in russia... gg communists

@neilwilson5785

5 жыл бұрын

Putinium

@andreyche193

5 жыл бұрын

No worry, Trumpium beats it all: even a composite Obamium/Bushshit armor!

@hurculesarmy9897

5 жыл бұрын

I think you mean putinium

Odd Ball says : Shoot paint shells at the T-14 and blind the cameras and make pretty colors . Woof ,Woof

@MightyBjorn

5 жыл бұрын

Woof Woof! That's my other dog impression.

@BAZZAROU812

5 жыл бұрын

Always with the negative waves..

@chivoyeur

5 жыл бұрын

or we can just make a deal, who knows, maybe he's a republican....

@mickemike2148

5 жыл бұрын

@MIMthegreat

5 жыл бұрын

@fassenkugel Another victim of russian propaganda :/

I've been studying tanks since I was a teenager and, honestly, I'm not impressed with the T14. Like many things that come oit of Russia, the overhype is real. That's not to say the tank is no good, it's just I can't find anything that would put it over a M1A1, much less the upgraded ones. One shot at the T14 turret and it's done, whereas the Abrams could take several hits just fine. The Abrams ability to see and shoot is second to none.

@keithhoward4069

2 жыл бұрын

Russians always hype their equipment and it almost always falls well below the hype. Their tanks don't appear to be doing much in Ukraine against their own older tanks and anti tank manpads. I don't think they would hold up well against our much upgraded abrams.

@TheNubadak

2 жыл бұрын

Adding. Light machinegun fire at the back of the T14 turret "ring" may disable is primary deffensive reative system.

@dumbsharkyboii6485

2 жыл бұрын

You forgot the fact that the USA army has a infintie budget, Russia is close to being poor. The fact that a almost poor country can make something that can face one of the strongest superpowers is just impressive.

@keithhoward4069

2 жыл бұрын

@@dumbsharkyboii6485 Doesn't change the fact that you would rather be fighting in an Abrams tank, if given a choice.

@dumbsharkyboii6485

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithhoward4069 I didn't said that it was able to defeat it, I was just saying that in my eyes its impressive what they managed to create.

Yes because m1 Abrams exists in a quantity larger than 5. And it's operational.... And not probably just propaganda.

@killthewrong4598

24 күн бұрын

You know there are hundreds of Abram’s right? And they literally wooped ass in the Middle East against all kinds of Soviet tanks even the technically advanced versions

Easy. Abrams crew: Tested in multiple battlefields Armata crew: Tested on paradegrounds

@gratius1394

5 жыл бұрын

Yep, it was tested - against vehicles generation or more older than itself. T-55s, T-62s and T-72s were no match for Abrams, that's true. Americans don't like excuses like "these weren't Russian tanks with Russian crews, that's why they sucked". OK, I'll accept that. But when Yemeni destroyed a bunch of Saudi M1's, Abrams fanboys used the same argument as Russian tanks fanboys used previously - that Saudi tanks were downgraded and not as combat worthy as their American equivalents. I'm not sure what others are seen but I see a distinct pattern here...

@cheezybirb7810

5 жыл бұрын

@@gratius1394 American exceptionalism at it's finest

@gratius1394

5 жыл бұрын

@@anarchythefox I'm afraid you didn't understood what I've wrote and you're just proving my point here.

@gratius1394

5 жыл бұрын

@@anarchythefox Did you looked when my comment was edited? No? Then check it out if you don't mind. It had nothing to do with what I wrote, more like "how" I wrote. I'm not native English speaker so I correct my own mistakes if I notice any. And about WHAT I wrote, since you obviously don't know what I was talking about... I pointed out excuses used by both groups of fanboys and you've just repeated one of them. That was my point. If you're unable to understand it, it's not my problem.

@78mihovil

5 жыл бұрын

@@gratius1394 mmmm u're not right yemeni terain is the most difficult terrain for thanks on Earth and the best for little mobile ATGM unit s like Houtis have ..nor Armata or other Sci Fi tank will not happy there ... but one more fact KSA havent Abram variants like US Army have .... 3 fact read or watch how modified Abrams was effctive in Mosul battle nor one was destroyed and they do biggest role in liberation of city even they was hited by numbered of ATGM and ATM

KV-2 is obviously better, best tank ever made faxx, change my mind

@gurtzy1124

5 жыл бұрын

Doubtful

@Homieman-nz6si

5 жыл бұрын

*remembers the monster of raseiniai*...agreed!

@John.S.Patton

5 жыл бұрын

Well in real life M1 Abrams will out range the KV2

@blainegoodwin6365

5 жыл бұрын

M1A2 Abrahams is better. Change my mind

@Homieman-nz6si

5 жыл бұрын

@@blainegoodwin6365 ok, the unfortunate lack of an existing tank called "Abrahams" lol

I feel like tanks will eventually be like two knights hitting each other with wooden clubs...

The RedEffect intro is like a opening to a horror game or a game company, its so cool

Ultimately it comes down to the operators in the tank not the machine.

@masondyer1625

5 жыл бұрын

Unless it’s the Ha Go, then that would be the infantry bayonet

@TheYedad

5 жыл бұрын

Mmm... and what if the operator is a machine 😟

@rcpwProductions

5 жыл бұрын

The bob semple tank had bad operators so the tank is bad Of course not i wouldnt do that to my boy bob

@rubenscott3972

5 жыл бұрын

Also who would invade who how would they fly all the tanks for a fast attack or how many ships would they need

@4MotorCross

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly. And when you fill a tank with Americans your pretty much guaranteed that the only thing your gona hit is another friendly guy or tank

Almost 4 years after this video and T-14 is still not fully operational . Just bout 25 made, all prototypes or pre-production models, and the first 100 strong test batch, to be delivered this year, are increasingly harder to became reality as sanctions impact on Russian economy! Apparently, some critical components related to night-vision system uses...french technology!

@alexburke1899

2 жыл бұрын

How do we know there’s even 25 their military is apparently all smoke and mirrors:) There’s probably one of them they repaint different colors so we think there’s more than one or two. Pretty sure they won’t be finishing this project anyways after imploding their own economy. Russians will probably soon be breaking down tanks for scrap metal to buy food.

@alexnacgmail

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexburke1899 : The french defense minister akowledge the selling of 25 FCS (similar to Leclerc type). So, 25...is the best case scenario (you are right!)

@Andrew_Sword

2 жыл бұрын

and the money for this project is probably embezzled by now

@rogue__agent5884

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexnacgmail ?? T-14 doesn’t use foreign components

@yaraelpoof7242

2 жыл бұрын

That’s the t-90a

Yes because the T14 doesn't exist other than in prototype.

@ytkomar1141

Жыл бұрын

Nope, there has been 30+ T-14 produced as a part of pre production series.

@funboy3992

Жыл бұрын

@@ytkomar1141 and what? Even if there are more then hundred of this tanks, russian soldiers still don't have an opportunity to test them or train with them.

@maddymankepovich1796

Жыл бұрын

@@ytkomar1141 30+ tanks wich were never seen, peak stealth technology

This guy is my now go to person for tank information, the level of detail that he puts out when compared to other KZread channels has got my attention. Keep up the fantastic work and don’t change a thing about this channel, it’s already so good.

Seems like having little turret armor of the T-14 is bad idea in my opinion. Enemy tanks will just target turret for a firepower kill. Tank without working main gun turret is useless on battlefield.

@pietersteenkamp5241

6 жыл бұрын

But they crew can live to fight another day and hitting the small main gun ( the gun is much smaller than the turret area you see) frontally will be harder than it looks. Remember that the Afghanit is claimed to reduce APFSDS effectiveness by 50% or more and could very well be optimized for deflecting it away from the turret and onto the Malachit that would do the same perhaps even destroying the remaining segment of the 'crowbar' entirely. Edit: Also even if the main gun is destroyed all the sensors may not be so the AESA panel and secure data networks could still allow this manned 'pillbox' to keep feeding data to artillery and other tanks which could increase their chances of escaping damage or destroying the threat. Sensor fusion has always been important ( second world war it was actually just radio& radar) but i think with AI and drones i think massively armored & defended mobile fusion hubs could keep the armed slaved drones in the fight much longer and more effectively.

@panzerggg239

6 жыл бұрын

A hit on the gun breech is unlikely and the Abrams does not have composite armor on the breech either, no tank does.

@RePlayBoy101

6 жыл бұрын

the armata will most likely spot the enemy threat first .... not to mention it will hit it first becouse it sports the most accurate gun on the market atm

@jamesricker3997

6 жыл бұрын

It's not the enemy tanks that worry me, it's the IFVs

@hp2084

5 жыл бұрын

not a sitting duck. If your gun doesnt woek that doesnt mean engine is shot off too.

Forget about the tanks abilities for a second, what about crew training. America spends more money on crew training then Russia & American tank crews are battle tested. Both tanks are good but the crews are important too.

@Real34167

5 жыл бұрын

Thats da Problem America Use the money to give More facilities to their training so more human friendly motivation but russia its doesnt they got much wild resources and each of the must killl a bear With a knife and they all burried in ice for 1 day

@IIIVI

5 жыл бұрын

@@Real34167 because killing a bear with a knife is gonna help you drive a tank. Fuck off with ur propaganda ruski

@kellerweskier7214

5 жыл бұрын

An expert bowman. With over 50 years of experience. The best in the world. ... is better trained then a US Army Tank Crew. With that Bowman’s equipment. Can he take down an M1? Or t14?

@IIIVI

5 жыл бұрын

@@kellerweskier7214 neither, he's immediately mowed down with a Browning 50 Cal.

@RealStitchie

5 жыл бұрын

All tanks have the same weakness: Tracks and barrel

No Abrams could beat either T-14. The one dedicated to parade ground exhibit is particularly deadly while the other one, exhibited at the Great Patriotic Museum, is also pretty tough.

@breadboi1248

Жыл бұрын

Cant beat it if you cant ever find them out of parades lmao

I Love your work Man! Thanks for all of the in depth information

As an ex tanker I can tell you tank on tank combat is very rare in war

@elusive6119

5 жыл бұрын

True, this happens rarely enough, so the T-72B is basically focused on shooting at fortifications. And its main projectile is high-explosive fragmentation.

@cynicalfox190

5 жыл бұрын

Robert Tatarian yeah a Tanks lifetime in combat without air superiority is probably going to be about a minute once it’s been lazed

@bru_5741

5 жыл бұрын

Just send mad joe with demo charges and atgmsand a machete

@KaiserBelisariusSantos

5 жыл бұрын

The only tank on tank battle you get nowadays are on War thunder and WOT

@king_of_war5327

5 жыл бұрын

for America that may be because they pick on smaller and weaker countries with very little army and they also rely on their airforce to take out targets because they are pussies

It's not going to be tank v tank. It will be tank v rocket or bomb. Tanks are becoming like battleships 80 years ago.

@aceofthesky1247

4 жыл бұрын

Depends on the adversary, agaonst Russia, yes. Against something like Afghanistan no

@mrspeigle1

4 жыл бұрын

Air superiority f**** over tanks, we've known this since World War II we've also had Rockets and bombs since World War II. That doesn't mean the usefulness of Tanks is at its end even against a peer or near peer opponent

@paulaction9874

4 жыл бұрын

Oh I wish I had a bottle of whiskey every time this saying was proved to be a load of tosh.

@Cowboycomando54

4 жыл бұрын

No, how else do you provide mobile cover for infantry while simultaneously being able to engage hardened targets?

@michaelbowes9894

4 жыл бұрын

The days of conventional warfare are gone. Nobody with a brain would take on the US. Wheres the battleground? But there is plenty of unconventional warfare happening, and the US needs to start thinking differently. Tanks and planes are ineffective in 'hearts and mind' wars. Did Vietnam teach you nothing? Well try Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria....

tl;dr T-14 is better but Russia hasn't made enough of them.

@rcheek207

3 жыл бұрын

not better and they never will

@denizkaanbudak2857

3 жыл бұрын

Yes but do you know why there arent enough of them, financial problems?

@italianbourgeois2926

3 жыл бұрын

yet

@novkorova2774

3 жыл бұрын

@@denizkaanbudak2857 That's the usual for Russia when they aren't lucky enough for oil to be at historical maximums.

@bradolfpittler2875

3 жыл бұрын

*tl;dw

What about the integrated digital information Battle network that the M1 tank would share with the f35, f22, us satellites, and E3? Thank you for the great videos.

@protorhinocerator142

3 жыл бұрын

This is the real question. We don't normally send tanks out without extreme air superiority. Tanks aren't useless by any stretch, but they can't win a modern war by themselves. If we were to fight Russia (let's hope not) and they had an equal number of tanks on the other side of the hill, we'd call in air strikes first. In the early days of a war it would be the B-2, F-35, and possibly F-15 strike eagle. If we're already 2 weeks in, we've most likely destroyed the enemy air defenses. Now we're sending in A-10's, Apaches, and B-52's. Sure we'd all like to see who wins with 100 M-1 and 100 T-14 tanks but our generals would never let that happen.

@mcbmcb5163

3 жыл бұрын

@@protorhinocerator142 dream on dream on, this may work on hollywood. In the real world if the USA went to war on Russian soil they woukd end up being asskicked hard. Their aircrafts will have to face the most powerful radar and missile missile network on earth and then the russian airforce which can rely on super long range missiles in addition Russian have also state of the art electronic warfare sysems that can take out even satellite communications and datalinks. Russia is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq ...and there is no Tom Cruise out there who fight enemies waving a cocktail glass in his hands while flirting with slutty girls.

@protorhinocerator142

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcbmcb5163 Here's what would happen in the real world. We'd smoke the Russian ground troops and the Russians launch nukes. Game over. Never ever attack Russia. They might not win, but you certainly won't. The US missile defense shield isn't designed to protect against thousands of Russian missiles at once. North Korea? Yeah. If they send one missile we could send 10 Patriots (or whatever the latest version is called) up to get it. Even if it's only a 50% chance to hit, that becomes a 99.9% certainty with 10 attempts. Yeah, it really is. 2^10 = 1024. It's over 1000 to 1 odds of that missile getting through or 99.9% chance of us knocking it out of the sky. I don't know what the real odds are per missile. I'm assuming they're better than 50/50. We've been using Patriot-type missiles in combat for nearly 30 years. We used them in 1991 against the Iraqi scud missiles. I'm sure whatever the new ones are, they're better than what we had 30 years ago.

@chaosXP3RT

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcbmcb5163 Binkov made a video showing that the US could invade Russia

@honkhonk8009

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcbmcb5163 lmfao hes just stating facts. Hes not saying any winner. The US doctrine is to prioritize aircraft, and then send in infrantry and armour. Russian doctrine is more for defence.

They are all effective platform. The crew and training is the real difference

@frenchsoldier8485

5 жыл бұрын

Stronger armour and a better gun can make up for poor reloading speed

@frenchsoldier8485

4 жыл бұрын

@tron What does this has to do with my point that thicker armor and a stronger gun can make up for a few more seconds of reloading

@frenchsoldier8485

4 жыл бұрын

@tron That and the French didn't use radios, and weren't all that well organized

@frenchsoldier8485

4 жыл бұрын

@tron But my point is mainly this: if your armor is thick enough that it can take a shell from the enemy vehicle before you're ready to fire, then you have a better chance of making it

I think the fact that the turret of the T-14 is a weakpoint is pretty huge problem. Yes, the crew maybe safely tucked away in their little impenetrable bunker, but that doesn't mean anything if the tank can't actually fight. Destroying the turret/gun, makes the tank combat ineffective. It becomes nothing more than a literal bunker on tracks. This is why I'd rather have a more conventional tank like the M1 than the T-14. And if I had to choose a Russian vehicle, it'd have to be a T-90M.

@GigaB1ter

6 жыл бұрын

There were proposed versions of the T90MS with the T-14s gun and ammunition, lower profile and arguably more armored on the turret. I'd wager on that more because of segmented apfsds in development to counter the hard kill aps on the T-14.

@albertoamoruso7711

6 жыл бұрын

The weakspot of the armata (the turret) is as big as the gunmount for the Abrams, which is M1's weakspot. So i don't think that really matters

@majorborngusfluunduch8694

6 жыл бұрын

Nazi Vampire Eating Babies Uh, no the Armata's turret is way bigger than the Abram's gun mantlet...

@albertoamoruso7711

6 жыл бұрын

John Doe Nope, that's just the shell. What matters is the gun and its rangefinder, which is as big as the Abrams one (look at the video)

@albertoamoruso7711

6 жыл бұрын

Look at 03:12

With swarms of cheap drones loaded with Tank Busting missiles like the Hell-Fire and equivalent, I'm not sure ANY Main Battle Tank will be relevant much longer!

@Elthenar

4 жыл бұрын

Up until directed energy weapons are mature enough to be in the field. A couple of laser armed anti-air vehicles would clean the skies of drones in a hurry. In fact, directed energy weapons could potentially make all missiles and aircraft obsolete, aside from those with stealth.

@ashutoshsharmash

3 жыл бұрын

Light tanks and armored fighting vehicles will survive into the next generation and even the next world war. There is nothing sweeter than having a tank or an AFV by your side as an infantryman. No matter how rich and well equipped a military you are, the cost of operating a tank is far less than operating an air asset per hour, and so its cheaper and more cost effective to deploy a tank regiment for a day, than to deploy an F35 for an hour. And with systems like Trophy and Shtora, the survivability against guided munitions increases.

@publickdefendrr8101

3 жыл бұрын

@@ashutoshsharmash I'm thinking that technology is becoming so advanced that going to war at all will become unthinkable! But I also think that's all apart of our evolution as human beings. War has served its purpose in forcing us to become a far more advanced species in order for us to take the next step. ✌

@ashutoshsharmash

3 жыл бұрын

@@publickdefendrr8101 True.... The bigger the stick, the more you have a chance at peace. It has certainly prevented larger wars with more powerful nations. But smaller, low intensity conflicts still remain.

@bigmike9128

3 жыл бұрын

This is what the USMC is counting on.

GREAT VIDEO !!! SUPER INFORMATIVE !! I RECENTLY SUBSCRIBED !!! GOOD JOB !!!

*Hans* Get ze panzer VIII maus

@frenchsoldier8485

5 жыл бұрын

*Hanz gets killed while he tries to invade into Russia*

@slimrudy2133

5 жыл бұрын

@@frenchsoldier8485 and the French surrender

@frenchsoldier8485

5 жыл бұрын

@@slimrudy2133 Da

@mydlear4238

4 жыл бұрын

OG JT Sure, the people just turned fascist

@datboi9648

4 жыл бұрын

Germany has entered the game.

Nothing can beat the bt-5

@Pao234_

5 жыл бұрын

There is one tank that can, bt-7)))

@megar_potato859

5 жыл бұрын

Loltractor and rekt bt5 and bt7

@sokigd8686

5 жыл бұрын

bt 42

@jamesrush685

4 жыл бұрын

yeap a british design at that =)

@sarttee

4 жыл бұрын

LVT > YOUR BT5

Bob semple has a 360 full time fire power with it's 6 machine guns. No bullshit like these tanks

This aged well 😬

@vvhitepower

Жыл бұрын

yeah, shit doesn't exist in real life :)

The biggest weakness I see with the Armata is the location of the Tank Commander. There is a reason that on the most effective tanks for last 70-80 years have the TC in the turret doing nothing more than controlling his tank, no amount of sensors or tv screens can compete with the Mark I eyeball. In fact what I have been able to read about the Armata, there is a good chance the TC will end up suffering from information overload. Sensrs and night vision are great aids but you also need a good 360 degree view of the battlefield. A commander relying soley on tv screens is going to feel both physically and mentally awkward and would miss things a traditional commander would see.

@okakokakiev787

3 жыл бұрын

At some point you have a choice: sitting in a turret looking through hatches and having 400-600mm protection or sitting in an isolated capsule using optics and having 1000+ mm where it matters. Basically old gen vs new gen.

@myopicthunder

2 жыл бұрын

maybe they should consider implementing a VR solution, not really vr but head mounted display

The one thing that is not adressed is the undeniable combat experience of the M1 abrams and the tank crews which is way superior. armata is a platform that's yet to be proven in a real battle; when it comes to technology and experience, the latter wins. that said,war is always unpredictable.

I can't stop enjoying your videos! wether new or old ones) great talk, keep it up

Thanks for the nice presentation. . .👌

Drives down a country road in Afghanistan and all of a sudden your active protection system starts blowing up low flying birds.

@bislig2alabama

5 жыл бұрын

Ha ha ha, David and Goli...

@rsrt6910

5 жыл бұрын

That's one way of getting those damn pigeons to stop shitting all over my roof. (Not to mention it's more fun.)

Besides what you mentioned, tank success in battle is also dependent on crew training, battlefield doctrine, battle strategy, leadership, and disruption of Command/Communication/Control. I believe these factors to be much more important than basic capabilities of the tanks themselves.

Cool info dude. TQ

Due events since the creation of this video, I feel like it needs a followon video: Does the T-14 stand a chance against a Ukrainian Tractor.

@rogue__agent5884

2 жыл бұрын

Ukraine tractor are op n unstoppable

I like your honest "Non Biased" examination of the modern MBT's Soon to be on the battlefield ... This is what it takes to earn a Good reputation for Accuracy and Credibility... From one tank lover to another...Good Job...👍

What happens when all 20 T-14s are destroyed?

@SooSneeky

6 жыл бұрын

The T-34's go back into service.

@GRaToMiC

6 жыл бұрын

model 1942*

@zrbbg9639

6 жыл бұрын

Then the T-99s are built

@Max_Da_G

6 жыл бұрын

And how do you propose to do that? Also there are over 400 T-90s, several thousand T-80s, several thousand T-72B3Ms. All those are backed up by Khrizantema tank hunter.

@miguelmontenegro3520

6 жыл бұрын

Russia builds 74323479 trillion more tanks... business like usual

Hey, thanks for putting this together. Well done in the context of a simple comparison. The reality is that success in combat will come down to the overall implementation of systems and management of the battle space. The Russians are a proud people with tremendous potential. Sadly they remain regional competitors, when the reality is we share more strategic interests than not. We should be natural allies. But a culture formed by a history of being invaded is a powerful motivator.

@reedrk88t

2 жыл бұрын

It come down to the crews, not the tank. This guy actually says the T14 is a better tank. I'll put my 20 year career on it that he's extremely weak in knowledge of the M1......waaaayyyyy off.

@thelouster5815

2 жыл бұрын

I’m from the future where Russia becomes the invader. I can say with certainty the T-14 is garbage equipment made all the worse by Russia’s circus of a military.

@Reaper08

11 ай бұрын

This comment has aged like shit filled milk.

Good work. Thank you.

In warfare where he who shoots first wins, and with two tanks who are essentially impervious to each other excluding a few weak spots, neither can really be called "better." That said, the T-14 has a serious issue with its low turret armor. Just because you don't kill the crew doesn't mean its a better tank. Any penetrating hit to the turret from a MBT is surely going to not just mission kill the T-14, but likely keep it off the battlefield for a long time as all that machinery inside it is replaced.

@ericnoonan616

5 жыл бұрын

That's not always true considering if you look at major wars and who started what most of the countries who fired first lost. Germany fired first and lost. Japan fired first and lost. It's about training and war proven machines and the US has it which sucks because I rather my country stay out of the wars. Let Russia and China deal with the world and see how many countries decide they want the US back in charge.

@luciantruscott8528

5 жыл бұрын

Eric Noonan he’s talking about literally firing first in combat. Not one country making a move on another country

@ericnoonan616

5 жыл бұрын

@@luciantruscott8528 did you even read my comment? I was talking about others literally firing the first shot. Smh.

@ipodhty

3 жыл бұрын

Who fires first is most likely to win isn't about wars but individual fights, it two tanks fight who ever could fire first is the most likely winner

@myopicthunder

2 жыл бұрын

it's all modular design to make repair a trivial thing as swapping out the turret so the tank doesn't have much downtime, also you can't see the real turret armor as it's covered by a shroud, so it might have extreme angled armor in places where you think it's flat.

an unproven tank against a proven battle tank, what do you think?

@1389ultrasrbin

5 жыл бұрын

unproven vs unproven

@bluelightbullshit5792

5 жыл бұрын

M1 fucks Russian tank gang bang

@MC-th5by

5 жыл бұрын

@@bluelightbullshit5792 highly doubt it

@neurofiedyamato8763

5 жыл бұрын

Hate that stupid argument if you can even call it such. 1) M1 Abrams proven against out-dated tanks. Even against more modern tanks, they are hand-me-downs stripped of advanced features. 2) Unproven =/= ineffective. It simply mean we aren't sure if it is as good as advertised. It can also equally likely to be superior than advertised. 3) Proven simply means that we know what it can do, no more and no less. Doesn't mean it is automatically better or else we would still use WW2 tanks because it's "proven." 4) Proven in combat only tells you its reliability and its support logistics/infrastructure. Which is extremely important of course, but that is only a part of any weapon's platform.

@toxicatto6074

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, how "proven" is the M1A2 anyway? I tought the proven MBT is M1A1 Abrams, which is proven to kill outdated garbage driven by a poorly armed, and low morale terrorists...

It's more than just armor and gun. It's the battle management (avoidance and engagement with navigation and terrain) and ballistic solution down range (getting the shell on target 90%+ quickly). The computer and communication systems in the Abrams are vastly greater than the Armata

@country_flyboy

4 жыл бұрын

@marino deželak It is mostly a hardware difference caused by the radically different designs. While the T-14 is a revolutionary design, it does rely on a somewhat complicated and vulnerable camera system. For example, there is only one sight available to the gunner in the Armata. If it gets damaged or destroyed, it would make aiming extremely difficult, as the commander would then have to aim the gun with a sight that was not made for that purpose. The camera system also is imperfect by nature as the crew would not have good depth perception, especially when compared to the more conventional sights on the Abrams. This also means that the T-14 can be effectively incapacitated with one well placed turret shot or maybe even an accurate auto-cannon shot, especially to the large gun sight. I cannot say if the software is different, as that is not an area that I am familiar with. However, the reliance on camera and electronic systems may also make the T-14 vulnerable against electronic warfare or cyber attacks. I hope this answered your question.

@country_flyboy

4 жыл бұрын

@marino deželak As far as I know, the T-14 platform is only used for the main cannon armament, and not as an AA or rocket platform. That doesn't rule the possibility out, but it would probably be too expensive to be of any major use.

@EcchiRevenge

4 жыл бұрын

@@country_flyboy Any of the tanks mentioned here would have been disabled easily with one HE-frag to the face, especially if airburst. Abrams' gunner backup sight(which is a simple telescope sight) is on the mantlet, think about that for a second. Also there's nothing that says Commander's sight can't be used to fire the main gun as well as gunner's sight(including commander's own rangefinder) on T-14. T-14 actually has more chance of surviving it since there's not enough armor for serious spalling on turret(hence requiring direct hit to gun/sights to truly disable the gun reliably; and you bet there will be more redundancy in the systems since obviously the crew isn't occupying that space), and HE/HEAT rounds would simply be shot down by APS. Last I heard USarmy was only testing trophy system.

@Dagfinm

3 жыл бұрын

@@country_flyboy There is a modification of the T-14, the T-15, its basically a BMPT-72 on an Armata chassie

@country_flyboy

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dagfinm It isn't a complete copy of the chassis, as the engine is place in the front in order to add a passenger compartment in the rear. A truly modular design would allow one chassis to support multiple turrets. One such design is the General Dynamics Ajax. Each variant of the Ajax uses the same hull, but has different turrets/equipment.

I enjoy your videos. I wish you'd talk about tank crews and training as well. Fact is an untrained insurgent crew in the world's best tank, would easily be destroyed by a highly trained elite crew in a "standard" modern tank. Training and tactics matter moreso than equipment.

@Tales41

3 жыл бұрын

Actually it does the tank determines how hard it is to train a crew

This is May 2018? Well. Guess what the US Army put in an order for. The M1A2 SEPv4 As the marines desired the M1A2 SEPv3 So now the manufacturers are going to call them: M1A2C = SEPv3 for the Marines And M1A2D = SEPv4 for the Army. The newest equipment, electronics, armor enhancements and upgrades, and insides, will reduce the weight of the tank by 2-tonns. Give the M1A2D the ability to usr AirBurst munitions better, use the new multi-function munition. Breach reinforcements for harder burning munition propellant, upped the thermal and camera generation and color, added a new ERA, and Supplementary plating, with clay spacers ontop of the Supplementary. New chicken shield for MG gunners, improved APU wile dedicating a electric motor for idle. Reinforcing the gun barrel, new track guider wheels. Half this stuff is being tested for better versions to be put on the M1A3

@edgeldine3499

5 жыл бұрын

@J L technically we dont, America has a huge emphasis on air superiority and tanks dont stand a chance against airpower.. but nothing exists in a vacuum.

@raptorreaper

5 жыл бұрын

Imo, If you have nukes, you don't actually need to have the best equipment. No one is going to touch u. Eg:- Iran and North Korea. I could be wrong tho...

@edgeldine3499

5 жыл бұрын

@@raptorreaper well it's less likely that a full blown war would erupt but these tanks still get exported (even if its a less capable variant) and may see combat against each other in some way shape or form. Also those sales are directly impacted by the perception they present. So all of this is a sales pitch.

@matthewgranata100

5 жыл бұрын

We have land,air,and sea because the US has the world's biggest naval fleet

@jaimeolguin3887

4 жыл бұрын

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🤙🏻👍

I believe the American tank crews are much better trained and the overall combat experience is higher.

@joshualee1827

5 жыл бұрын

but russians are better if they have vodka

@mauser66

5 жыл бұрын

@Nikola PoiukovYou can't be serious. The Americans are the best. So they keep telling the whole world.

GREAT WORK , very interesting content you cant really find idetail and facts as in this vid

Good review

where are you taking armor values from? AFAIK it's classified for most of the up-to-date tanks like Abrams..

Ok this is all theory. We all saw the much hyped Russian Pantsir S1 fail miserably against Israëli rockets.

Very interesting info.

I think a Volkswagen Beetle has a good chance against one on any battlefield. That may change when the T-14 actually shows up.

Great video...thank you. I love the whole concept of the T-14. It clearly is - IMO - the template for the next generation of tanks...with all the crew in the hull where it is far easier to protect them.

@ASlickNamedPimpback

2 жыл бұрын

Some people dislike autoloaders but with modern tanks being defined by their crew and not the tanks themselves, i think having a crew survive to be become more experienced and command another tank would be effective in the future

@spartanx9293

2 жыл бұрын

How is it the template concepts like that have existed since the eighties hell the US designed and built one

@timesthree5757

2 жыл бұрын

With this new conflict in UKraine we are seeing the auto loader a liability.

@jb76489

Жыл бұрын

Except tanks with all of their crew in the hull were tried decades ago and the concept abandoned This is what it looks like when your confidence car outstrips your actual knowledge, you look like an idiot

@hartincmajor202

11 ай бұрын

​@@timesthree5757the autoloader is fine, it's the munition storage that's an issue

My question, how does the M1 Abrams stand up to the #CyberTruck?

@seraphwithatank6535

2 жыл бұрын

Oh god.

I like this guy. He does his homework and presents useful information.

I don't know how an youtuber has so precise informations about military's technologies

@algrayson8965

4 жыл бұрын

Wikipedia🙄

Reminds me of a german soldier's quote after the war. It went something like this: "1 panzer tank could kill 10 American tanks (idk what it was called). Unfortunately the Americans had a habit of bringing 11 to the fight." The United States production capabilities is far superior to that of the Russians. Even if they have a slightly better tank, we would always have that 1 extra one in the fight

@AkeN996

5 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Luis A tank would’ve been just a moving target without its infantry or any other support force. I don’t know why the idea of the “german tank quality was good but their tanks were too few” is still used, while the reality is that the soviets simply developed technologically better tanks and overall equipment from 1942 onward, for example. What we currently know about the german army at that period has its source from retired german generals’ memoirs, written 20 years after the war, while the russian informations were ignored.

@joshhopper9307

5 жыл бұрын

Alexandru Ernest The OPs comment was highly relevant. At a certain stage, numbers always begin to tell. If a nation with superior manpower and industrial caps can keep it's people in the fight ideologically long enough,then numbers are enough. There certainly were some incredible Soviet tank designs but most were shit until around 43. And also don't forget that even the Soviets majority MBT in the field were Lend-Lease Shermans..

@alohadubs7683

5 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Luis Yep, we could shit out more M4 Sherman’s (the american tank of WW2)in a day than they could make all of their armored vehicles in a year (highly exaggerated but you get the point) Russia has clearly forgotten its greatest strength: producing shit tanks and then throwing them at the enemy until they “kill em dead”

@theortheo2401

5 жыл бұрын

The thing is we're comparing à country to a superpower...

@joshhopper9307

5 жыл бұрын

Theortheo Russia is(or at least has the ability to be) a superpower,even without the old Soviet Satellites. They just need to crank up their industry. Historically they may be commies but they need to Fash it up and repair their nation.

One thing is we don’t know much about he abrams armor due to it being classified for protection of the crew

@jerromedrakejr9332

4 жыл бұрын

Same about armor on all other modern tanks - classified...

@karentodd6938

4 жыл бұрын

Armour is British invented ceramic design multilayered. British Challenger 2 tanks have updated armour called Dorchester.

Great analysis...

This aged like old milk. So tell us, where are all the T-14s?

@Pikkabuu

Жыл бұрын

In storage as the Russians don't want their new shiny tank to fall in Western hands, or allow the West to test their weaponry against it.

@wurzel9671

Жыл бұрын

@@Pikkabuu peak copium

@Pikkabuu

Жыл бұрын

@@wurzel9671 Please explain how am I coping.

@wurzel9671

Жыл бұрын

@@Pikkabuu Russia is not able to produce T-14.

@Pikkabuu

Жыл бұрын

@@wurzel9671 Did I claim that the Russians have factories producing million Armatas per day?!

Cant they be jus friends, and not to think about conflicts! Peace is the best for all of us... Thank you!

@bislig2alabama

4 жыл бұрын

Right, a piece of your enemy is nice

@whatamidoingwithmylife4108

3 жыл бұрын

A wise man prepares for war in times of peace

As a Gulf War veteran (Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm 1990-1991) we spent most of our time prior to the start of combat operations hearing about the mythological abilities of the T-72. Ultimately the T-72 was a good tank but couldn’t stand up to the M1-A1. The reasons for this were not entirely based on armor and firepower, it also came down to training and crew cohesion. Ultimately the same factors will always factor into a tanks performance. The simply fact is there are features and abilities that exist on both these weapons systems that the general KZread viewing public are not aware of. In the end, these comments, which will contain opinions about which tank is superior, will mostly be driven by national pride. In the end the way we will find which is superior on the battlefield will be when groups of these tanks slug it out. What I can say is that US has an advantage regardless of what tanks they use and that is training. Russia adopted an assault on mass approach dating back to mid WW II and maintained it throughout the Cold War. While Russia has invested heavily in new weapons systems and technologies, it’s own media pointed out this past January 2020 that the training structure used by current Russian troops was identical to the soviet tactics of the 70’s and 80’s.

@user-dc9oq2pr6v

Жыл бұрын

The T72 is my favourite tank, but youre right. it is a tank from the 70's and is considerably smaller than abraham

@darkrolf7185

11 ай бұрын

@@user-dc9oq2pr6v and mostly the problem was, that the crew wasnt really trained, and also these t72s were export variants, which were downgraded to the last, and were only armor motor and gun.

Nice video bro

Good thanks, man.

M1 Abrams is a proven winner . Not to mention the training of its crews are superior . I'm not sure what kind of firepower the t14 packs but I know the Rhinemetal cannon on the Abrams is best in the world. Also Abrams has a higher performance gas turbine engine. T14 has a long way to go before being compared to Abrams.

@Andrewza1

5 жыл бұрын

you know the gun on the M1 is not the best right, America has not gone for the upgraded gun . they both have 1500hp but the T14 is lighter

@Tomcat82

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Coetzee Though there are other tank guns that edge out the Abrams’s somewhat shorter gun in terms of velocity and range, there’s a big reason why the US Army has chosen not to go with a longer gun: reliability. A longer gun has a greater tendency to become warped or bent while traversing across rough terrain quickly. The Abrams trades some firepower for better mobility and speed, but it’s gun is still capable enough to handle pretty much any tank. It’s all about finding the right balance between firepower, armor, and speed.

@Andrewza1

5 жыл бұрын

@@Tomcat82 The Leo 2 is just as fast on and off road and i have not heard of any reliability issues on the gun

@professionalantichristhate528

4 жыл бұрын

Luis Cuba oh come on, seal clubbing 3rd world countries with tanks from the 60’s doesn’t count as winning, it’s glorified target practice.

@willisix2554

4 жыл бұрын

@@alpbartuakdemir6489 as I recall that's what was said about the t-90, it was supposed to be all that and then some, but to see what happened in Iraq!

Optional extras include a terrified untrained crew, no diesel and the now obligatory self ejecting turret. Now we discover that it can’t be made without now sanctioned foreign technology. Expensive joke. The Federation is doomed and about time too.

@Thor_Asgard_

2 жыл бұрын

agree

I am impressed that this channel has access to both tanks capabilities. Did Wiki leaks give it to them?

I would like to see a video on your thoughts for the next evolution of tanks and where tank design is trending

Title: Does M1 stand a chance against a T-14 America: Yes Yes Yes Yes YES

@Raj-df7wf

3 жыл бұрын

Mr Imalonewolf m1 no, m1a2e3 yes, or what ever is the most modern

@csbaca1

3 жыл бұрын

You speak for all Americans... imbecile? Why are you on an American made media platform called KZread? Doesn't russia have their own?

@Joaofeijao123

3 жыл бұрын

@@csbaca1 you stupid guy ;-;

@atomicspartan131

3 жыл бұрын

Is that a motherfukin JoJo reference?!1??!1!1

@MidwestDIY

3 жыл бұрын

2021 T-14 was always been a gimmick for TV show, 95% of Russian tanks are T-72 and older, only ~300 are T-90 (which are updated T-72). Abrams destroyed over 3000 T-72, T-60 in 1991 and 2003 Iraq, without losing a single Abrams

Tog 2 would destroy both of these tanks at the same time

@megar_potato859

5 жыл бұрын

Wonder Boy bob semple

@darnit1944

5 жыл бұрын

Bob Semple would be the one on the victory parade when the war ended.

@stevecherk1022

4 жыл бұрын

active protection! So not fact!

I don't think T 14 could ever reach 70kmph in reverse at all

Fast forward 4 years we still haven't seen more than 8 t14 armatas at any one time i.e Russia has 8 t14s. T14 thermal sight turns out to be bought from french surplus ERA is probably egg cartons No cameras for the driver? Engine turns out to be a copy of a WW2 Porsche Tiger design, probably why it takes attrition in parades.

@mbtenjoyer9487

Жыл бұрын

Everything you just said is completely false kzread.info/dash/bejne/oK2Lo8ZqoLTPp7g.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKZ81pKKZsi5eZc.html

Sorry, but the number of Abram tanks in comparison to the T-14 regardless of whether or not the T- 14 could out preform the Abrams, would be totally overwhelming!!! Plus, I'm sure an Abrams tank just doesn't go out alone. You would have to contend with other support vehicles as well. Now, toe to toe, that would come down to the crew and them knowing the capabilities of their tank. I still feel that the Abrams ( especially with the latest "C" version) would dominate.

"Tanks for watching!"

Good info. Thanks. Could you perhaps do a newer comparison based upon the latest info from Ukraine, inclusive of the effect of sanctions? Great channel. Keep it up.

Very good thanks

Well seeing as that the T-14 doesn't actually exist....

You still waiting on those Armata’s 5 years later?

@yaya_is_real

Жыл бұрын

who hurt you my nigga

@V4N9U15H.

Жыл бұрын

​@@yaya_is_real Russian T-14 manufacture speed

@yaya_is_real

Жыл бұрын

@@V4N9U15H. I'm sure you know more than the entirety of the Russian federation , if they were really needed they'd make them

@mrcar2237

9 ай бұрын

@@yaya_is_real Problem is, they really do

I don't have much regards for Russian Tanks and technology... T14 included but there no example or evidence of its battle record

A tank with a disabled gun or turret, is called moving target practice m1,is heavy fast and a beast to kill when operated by a good crew.

The US is not going to release any information on when or what m1's are equipped with 🤷‍♂️

@paulmatthews5664

3 жыл бұрын

it's common knowledge lol

Thank you for posting this video. Your research and report is appreciated. Do you believe General Dynamics believes in their own B.S.? I know the GTC-1500 is a good gas turbine engine, but it is OLD! Time for a newer higher HP @ 1800 perhaps? Don't know if the General Dynamics engineers would be confident if they had to man those tanks into battle.

Since the Russians have a well documented history of poor performance relative to hype and specs, I suspect the T-14 is no different and obsolete even before it’s operational. I’ve never seen Russian made equipment of any platform actually live up to its billing.

I believe that in the next 10 years Russia will use t72, t80 and t90 modernised derivatives. ..

@pietersteenkamp5241

6 жыл бұрын

Yes. There is already a contract to upgrade the existing 500 T-90's to the latest standard sporting both Afghanit active protection system and relikt reactive armor. This combination should be sufficient to prevent frontal penetration of the T-90 at likely combat ranges and thus allow it to engage in the 2-4 km range ( main gun and ATGM) with some safety. Of course the side and hull armor is still not fantastic but Afghanit may be sufficient to prevent penetration of all but perhaps latest APFSDS.

@adventuressurvivalinthailand

6 жыл бұрын

Not T80, that thing is out of favour with the Russian army

@LoisoPondohva

6 жыл бұрын

The Adventuring & Camping School, Thailand not really. T80 is still very numerous. And in some structural points it is better than 90, which is basically 72 mechanically.

@pietersteenkamp5241

6 жыл бұрын

Information from late 2017 suggest that are planning/trying to upgrade 3000 of the T-80Bv's to the the BVM standard ( or something like that) and that 24 billion Ruble had been allocated.

@miguelmontenegro3520

6 жыл бұрын

Old tanks can be affective... look some old sri lanka's modernized army tanks. Or the modernized brazilian m3 stuart (desperate i know... but worked smoothly until it was phased out).