Get 68% off NordVPN! Only $3.71/mo, plus you get an additional month FREE at nordvpn.com/binkov or use a coupon binkov

@pyeitme508

3 жыл бұрын

Cool thanks for telling

@LittleRamsies

3 жыл бұрын

Could Modern 🇰🇷 survive the 50s Korean War and take the whole peninsula???

@edgeldine3499

3 жыл бұрын

I know your using published (official) numbers but I know for a fact that the Abrams can go much faster than the stated speed limit. I can assume much the same for the others. Although it has a different style engine. I know a tanker who swears he was going 80mph in one and he was still accelerating. I also understand that yes your more likely to blow a track doing that speed.

@julianshepherd2038

3 жыл бұрын

Laughs in drone

@kmwong1786

3 жыл бұрын

NordVPN has just moved all operations to US ... will you trust them when all hardware is in US?

The T-14 has fabulous stealth technology. No one has spotted one yet.

@bernardomontell873

Жыл бұрын

Hilarious 😂

@mikekyto

Жыл бұрын

Lol

@arnav2.066

Жыл бұрын

lol

@Brommear

Жыл бұрын

This comment makes me think of the British officer speaking to a soldier: Officer: I did not see you at camouflage parade this morning. Soldier: Thank you sir.

@gilanorodrigues7049

Жыл бұрын

Lol

You know why they call it the T-14 right? Because they can only afford to build 14 of them.

@mawdeeps7691

2 жыл бұрын

the T is for towed for when it's outta gas or breaks down

@schiefer1103

2 жыл бұрын

May be incorrect but I hope you are right mate.

@mawdeeps7691

2 жыл бұрын

@@schiefer1103 google the series of mechanical failures its had

@lemon39845

2 жыл бұрын

@@mawdeeps7691 I bet those ukrainian tractors will do the towing

@haraldhimmel5687

2 жыл бұрын

@@mawdeeps7691 What series? I found one example, which may or may not have been part of a towing demonstration. The tank was able to leave the scene under its own power afterwards.

I can only imagine a column of headless T-14's wandering around without a turret looking for repairs...LOL

@Marktheburrito

2 жыл бұрын

Rather have that then a couple dead crewmen in my tank

@Bustermachine

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marktheburrito The concept isn't without merit. Whether the current Russia can actually pull it off on the other hand . . .

@TheGlen007

2 жыл бұрын

😆😆😆😆😆🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧

@nickgehr8408

2 жыл бұрын

@@Marktheburrito if the tank tosses its turret the crew wont be feeling very good....

@Cybersharky_

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickgehr8408 Dont think they'll be feeling much of anything at all lol

Yes, but how does it fare against tractors?

@specialnewb9821

2 жыл бұрын

We will never know as it appears to be too afraid of the tractors to operate in the area.

@specialnewb9821

Жыл бұрын

@12JK4FFG it did not. The guy driving it accidentally put the brake on and didn't know how to take it off.

@specialnewb9821

Жыл бұрын

@12JK4FFG yes. I'm not trying to make Russia look good. Also if it's the incident I'm thinking of it was a parade rehearsal that it got stuck. My source is a Task & Purpose video.

@specialnewb9821

Жыл бұрын

@12JK4FFG i 100% believe russia is shit at training people

A former German tank designer interviewed on the channel of Panzermuseum Munster said that the idea of unmanned turrets was well researched, but western engineers never liked it much (outside a few ill-fated attempts like the concepts leading up to the M60 Starship). It had too many practical issues for simple things, like no longer having the option to stick your head out of the turret to look at something that's at a bad angle for a camera. The designer also emphasised that Armata's size is now much more comparable to western tanks than the former Soviet designs.

@antiglobaljoel532

2 жыл бұрын

It's famous for eating crew members appendages.

@alexburke1899

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think this tank actually exists maybe 1 or 2

@red94mr28

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexburke1899 It's the same old story. The Russians crow about their new being more advanced than their Western counterpart. Then they can only afford to produce 4 or 5 of them, same as our military industrial complex's technology demonstrators.

@Seth9809

Жыл бұрын

Jordan literally has a unmanned turret, based on a M60 or something. The technology is totally possible for the US, it's just dumb.

@tominmtnvw

Жыл бұрын

Do United States is going to upgrade the Abrams with an automatic turret. Check the news.

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Yeah, the same way the Yamato ruled the waves when it was built. LOL

@mexicangovernment2305

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah so the allies ended up resorting to the use of aircraft to take it down.

@maxmeh2342

2 жыл бұрын

@@mexicangovernment2305 I wouldn't say "resorted". The allies used a weapon system the DID rule the battlefield and waves of the future. By the time of WWII, Battleships were relics of a bygone era. Today, manned tanks are relics.

@mexicangovernment2305

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxmeh2342 Well no, they aren't really relics, they are just not prepared for the current era

@StrikeNoir105E

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxmeh2342 The Ukrainians themselves are proving that manned tanks are not relics, if they're using them to better effect than the Russians.

@Raptor747

2 жыл бұрын

Hey now, that's not fair to the Yamato. Yamato was at least in full service and actually saw action (and even did critical damage to an escort carrier from very long range). The Armata is basically just a pathetic propaganda prop at this point.

Tank producer:Soo what kinda tank you want? Russia:Small head tanks but thicc body

@themc.kennyshow6585

3 жыл бұрын

AH AH! Osas!

Russia has a large modern military. However the large part isn't modern and the modern part isn't large.

@Immortal__

2 жыл бұрын

Modern part is MIA

@StrikeNoir105E

2 жыл бұрын

Well said

@skaweimc

Жыл бұрын

My brain rn👀🤔

@cejannuzi

Жыл бұрын

Yeah but using F-22s to bomb CIA rogue ISIS cavemen makes your panties wet, doesn't it?

@Emporiumtutorial

Жыл бұрын

They have tech probably more advance than Nato by now cuz nato almost abolished all military due to peace and no needed intervetionsm althoug Russia has problems with mass producing stuff if they do they will overtrun power to their side

I’m guessing not because Putin can only be in one tank at a time.

@comraderoman4299

3 жыл бұрын

That sounds like foreshadowing in a bad action movie lol

@outdooradventureHungary

3 жыл бұрын

Putin isnt chuck norrys

@alchemist6819

3 жыл бұрын

Hey you're that guy who comments on WW2 Channel, am I right?

@CivilWarWeekByWeek

3 жыл бұрын

Rajesh Kathiriya Yes I do do that

@qabbala1015

3 жыл бұрын

That's what he wants you to think

I guess you'll see a lot of them on any future battlefield in which they are used. You'll be able to easily locate them from the long columns of smoke and the fires from fuel and ammo cookoff.

@teddyd.5074

2 жыл бұрын

I hear the T14s are incredibly capable when being towed by Ukrainian tractors

@VladRadu-tq1pg

2 жыл бұрын

@@teddyd.5074 of course , ruski strong, vodka power

@danielwang5104

2 жыл бұрын

@@teddyd.5074 They are not even used lololol

@tonymontana8795

2 жыл бұрын

Still hilarious 😂

@Brian-px9gu

2 жыл бұрын

@@perc7226 like the Russian army.

The T72s turret ejection system is working perfect in Ukraine.

@momoted1512

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed. Reliability rate of over 80%. And people said Soviet tanks aren't well-built, aye?

@cejannuzi

Жыл бұрын

Yeah wow Ukraine WINNING yeah. LOL.

@mdl2427

Жыл бұрын

@@cejannuzi are you upset that Russia isn't in Kyiv yet?

@thebrowser6758

Жыл бұрын

@@mdl2427 they are in kyiv but only their destroyed tanks are

@vladraduandrei5227

Жыл бұрын

@@cejannuzi nah botski russia winning so much, you chaps in kiev already right ? what was it 3 days ?

Russia initially embarked on a massive program to equip its forces with this tank but never got beyond the production of a few prototype tanks and then changed its tune, saying that its current tanks were competitive with NATO tanks and that it would just modernize its existing tanks. This is strikingly similar to the hype about the Su-57 and then Russia's backtracking that the Su-35 was good enough for its defense needs but then has come out now saying that its going to develop its latest and greatest Su-75. I think what we are seeing with this country is an attempt to create halo weapon systems with which to dazzle unwary potential arms customers in the international market. We've seen its overhyped and underperforming missile defense systems that get defeated by Western technology when operated by Russia's customers. Russia is like an international used car salesman, let the buyer beware.

@anguswaterhouse9255

2 жыл бұрын

Aye all these people talking about how the greatest stealth plane is a LITERAL PIECE OF WOOD IN A SHOWROOM IN RUSSIA

@TheGlen007

2 жыл бұрын

Perfect couldn’t say it any better🇬🇧🇬🇧👊🇬🇧🇬🇧

@lukesalisbury6031

2 жыл бұрын

^^Imagine being able to read the future

@johanmetreus1268

2 жыл бұрын

Main problem with all the new systems is that Russia, while a huge country, has an economy on par with say, Spain in size. They have the skill and tech to put them together, but then the money bags are empty so back to the old stuff... again.

@bermanmo6237

2 жыл бұрын

I live in California. Even our economy is bigger than Russia. If we were a nation, we would be have the sixth largest economy in the world. Ironically, the video showed a large number of T-72. The tank that Russia can really afford. They are even putting a large number of more advanced T-80 and T-90 in storage. Only the armored units in the Western Military District facing NATO have all T-80 and T-90. All other armored units in the rest of Russia are mostly upgraded T-72, ex. T-72B3.

Well, only one way to find out! *_Looks at the Caucuses_*

@w346

3 жыл бұрын

Lol true

@goat3225

3 жыл бұрын

Only azerbaijan and armenia still has to be attacked yet! Let's go!

@w346

3 жыл бұрын

@@emie6117 he's right. Russian tanks got annihilated in karabakh by Turkish drones. Search it up if you don't believe me.

@MidwestDIY

3 жыл бұрын

Gaius Wyrden I can only imagine what American heavy drones will do to Russian military equipment (Predator C1, MQ reaper 9, 25, X47, etc), I think the world saw the ineffectiveness of Russian anti aircraft weapons in 2020 ( Syria, Libya and now Azerbaijan) a 50k drone missile destroys 115 million S300 or 13 million Pantsir S1

@ALP839

3 жыл бұрын

@@MidwestDIY There were no S-300 or Pantsir in Armenia, they just use Osa-AKM of Soviet origin. You should not believe all of the propaganda you read.

will it break the record on highest turret ever launched?

@Oxley016

Жыл бұрын

Well it is much lighter and with a roughly equal ammunition load. Should make it easier to propel even higher than all previous turrets.

@skaweimc

Жыл бұрын

It's much thougher and stronger than other Russian tanks bcz it has good armor and better shaped armor + there is currently no anti tank that can destroy t14 with one hit

@LittleZakie

Жыл бұрын

@@skaweimc oi, russian bot, looks like you really don't know much about anti tank ammunitions. You can destroy any kind of tank in a single hit, the thing is where you hit it and how strong the projectile is

The answer is no for three reasons. Reason 1: the Russian military can't afford to buy very many of them, so it's highly unlikely that they'd play a decisive role. Reason 2: the Russian military has clearly demonstrated that they do not understand armored or aerial combat in the least and, as such, any vehicle they deploy is going to be significantly less effective. Reason 3: the Armata has very good crew safety, but it's even more prone to a mission kill by shooting the turret than even older Soviet tanks or NATO tanks.

@michaelmazowiecki9195

2 жыл бұрын

Just add that the Armata uses western high tech which is now sanctioned.

@winniethepooh_june4_1989

2 жыл бұрын

Bro then why don't u just invade russia? If it's so weak !! Russian military may not have good logistics in ukraine but it has an excellent Domestic logitics/

@michaelmazowiecki9195

2 жыл бұрын

@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 what Russia has is massive stocks of equipment and supplues, numbers and a primive barbarity willing to cause massive loss of life and infrastructure.Russia should be given a big taste of its own medicine by bombardment of its military bases , ships, rail communications, fuel terminals and hubs all the way to Moscow.

@winniethepooh_june4_1989

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Yup!

@theTutenstien

2 жыл бұрын

@@winniethepooh_june4_1989 hmm maybe because russia has nukes? Tho probably 90% of them wont even work because it costs shit ton of money to maintain but still has nukes

As long as the Russians cannot fix their logistics, their mighty tanks barely make it out of the garage.

@Fucklesticks

Жыл бұрын

7 months later: Russia being routed, bringing back T62s from half a century ago, throwing untrained old men into trenches with a single magazine... Yeah they're fucked.

T-14 Im’ard’a

@radenprasetyo8234

3 жыл бұрын

No

@namesurname624

3 жыл бұрын

What

@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia672

3 жыл бұрын

Why every military video i see you in the comments

@Zulikas69

3 жыл бұрын

@@jethrowilliamhyramgrecia672 well he is a military enthusiast and was in British army driving IFV or tank, or both (can't remember) and today belongs to Canadian artillery corps/army/brigade (don't know exactly how to call it). He also have youtube channel dedicated to military stuff (sometimes non military video also).

@SSstormwalker1

3 жыл бұрын

@Matsimus is just salty that a puppet is crushing him in views and making bank off video sponsors.

Binkov: *Makes a video on T-14 Armata* Red Effect: *OOOOOHHHHH!*

@phunkracy

3 жыл бұрын

RedEffect would tear Binkov's a new one

@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613

3 жыл бұрын

@@phunkracy What would he do? Make up even more fake armour values?

@phunkracy

3 жыл бұрын

@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 wouldn't make basic mistakes

@lamalien2276

3 жыл бұрын

Red Effect did a way better job of analyzing the T-14s capabilities. He goes into the power train and agility a lot more and takes into account future upgradeability. Binkov sounds like he's guessing on most values. I'd take a middle path between the two for parsimony's sake.

@A_Nice_Guy.

3 жыл бұрын

@@heinrichmirgrautsvordir6613 Binkov keep making mistake on the T-90M, its true that gunner has a 2nd Gen thermal viewer, but he failed to mention that commander has a 3rd Gen, and by this simple and slight mistake he then erroneously conclude that T-14 (which has 3rd Gen thermal viewer for both gunner and commander mind you) has an inferior targeting system.....what? If you think that's propaganda and T-90M don't have 3rd Gen for the commander you should know that T-90M uses a French made (and latter licensed built) Thales thermal viewer.

Honestly its hard to feel threatened by this tank when they cant produce enough of them to even equip a brigade. Tbh i think its going to take them at least 10 years to make it in large enough numbers for it to be their mbt and by that time its going to be obsolete.

@philipgates988

2 жыл бұрын

In WW2 everyone in the US Army was afraid of the German Tiger Tank. The strategy was to avoid it and let Air superiority deal with them.

@filmandfirearms

2 жыл бұрын

It's possible the T-14 is just an example of what Russia usually does. Take a concept, like an unmanned turret, and push it as far as it can possibly go, then pare it down to something practical. What that would mean is that the Armata family is going to be used as a platform from which Russia will build a more practical tank with things like an unmanned turret and a hard kill APS

@philipgates988

2 жыл бұрын

@@filmandfirearms I agree. Create the ultimate tank then make it affordable through sacrificing some design elements, all the while dovetailing it’s capabilities with your overall doctrine. It is the ultimate armor fighting vehicle.

@justakettlehelm1673

Жыл бұрын

@@philipgates988 no. This is a common myth. American troops carried bazookas and would often either wait for the panzer to stop or they would ambush the panzer from the sides. The panzer was also not feared by the Sherman as it was able to easily outmaneuver the panzer and hit it from the side since the panzer's only 2 strengths are heavy frontal armor and a big gun. Everything else about the tank is a result of being hyped up by Wehraboos and hollywood movies, and in reality is actually completely garbage.

@philipgates988

Жыл бұрын

@@justakettlehelm1673 And I agree that missile technology will continue to wreak havoc on large assets.

For all the military specialists here: Have fun arguing with each other

@stastu6484

3 жыл бұрын

Theres so many "weapons experts" and "test drivers" in the comment section

@jc.1191

2 жыл бұрын

I take offense to that, we fight now! 🤣 Jk

@f9658

2 жыл бұрын

War thunder couch commandos

@belgianfried

2 жыл бұрын

lololol

I love how Blinkov diplomatically handled Crimea on the map.

@5hiftyL1v3a

3 жыл бұрын

time?

@asspukeshit

3 жыл бұрын

@@5hiftyL1v3a 22:50

@mostlymessingabout

3 жыл бұрын

@@asspukeshit Crimea is independent country 🤩... red for Soviet

@apotato6278

3 жыл бұрын

@Ozymandias Nullifidian Well that's hardly true. Russia has only owned Crimea since 1783. That's a shorter time than the U.S has existed. The fact that Russia has decided to "Take back" Crimea is simple politics. Sevastopol has a massive warm water port, something Russia has always desired. So to get this warm water port they wrongfully invaded an independent country. Russia is in the wrong here. And always will be.

@DrCruel

3 жыл бұрын

@@apotato6278 To be fair, he did say crime is Russian territory. Most of Russia's neighbors would agree.

Armata has a massive problem. The Javelin mk2 missile. All those sensors on the turret would be taken out, leaving the crew blind. The active defense systems won't be able to stop the Javelins top-down attack.

@mabotiyn

2 жыл бұрын

You predicted. Javelin is wreaking havoc in Ukraine

@georgefenrirbitadze4757

2 жыл бұрын

@@mabotiyn dude there is no armata tanks in Ukraine, Russia sent old t-72 and few dozen t90 (main battle tank of Russia) which are entering just now in 2nd and 3rd convoys. Don't eat up USA propaganda so easily, truth is in the middle

@Meoldson

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Western media hasn't specified which vairiants have been fielded. Also, western media is independent from the government, and therefore isn't propaganda. Our media happily critisizes the government. I wonder if that is the case in Russia? 🤣🤣

@Meoldson

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgefenrirbitadze4757 Also hardly any Armartas have been produced by now (and lets face it, Russia ain't got the cash to make any more!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

@KKSuited

2 жыл бұрын

@George Fenrirbitadze because there aren't enough of them and they probably dont work as well as advertised.. Same with su 57s. Russia's modern military is YT propaganda. Stingers and javelins are wrecking their armor. They can't even keep their gas tanks full during an invasion. Imagine believing they're going to field modern battle tanks en masse.

Of course T-14s will rule the modern battlefield. All 10 of them.

@michaelwest9311

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. For about 10 minutes.

@alfreddupont1214

3 жыл бұрын

Yup that's the true problem for Russia. Having the best tank in the world is irrelevant if you can't afford its mass production.

@mochiii608

3 жыл бұрын

@@alfreddupont1214 they can afford it, but corruption and its stupid arms industry, and i mean state owned companies, they were proven to be less effective and cause more problems

@victork515

3 жыл бұрын

All 2 of them. 3 tanks broke down, 5 more are made of cardboard and plasticine :))

@ganonstonebreaker4231

3 жыл бұрын

@@mochiii608 considering their economic health? Not really. The Saudis have done a lot of damage, the result of US fracking technology leaving the kingdom very uncomfortable about their sole major export. Russia unfortunately is left in the blast radius. You are right about state owned arms industries though, bureaucracies and efficiency don't go together.

I like these arguments when people say the SU-57 is better than XXXX or the T-14 is better than XXXX. Even if that's true it doesn't matter since both of those examples have serious issues that are delaying them from being built in any significant number. The Me 262 was well beyond the capabilities of aircraft during it's time. It didn't matter because there were just too few of them. The bigger hypothetical isn't if the T-14 is better than it's contemporaries. It's if they can even build them lol.

8:36 that is scary

All tanks look badass until they hear a drone flying over. Tank:Why do I hear boss music?

@apple222sickly

3 жыл бұрын

all drones rest in the sky until they hear the air defense Jets come in

@esashaik7083

3 жыл бұрын

@@apple222sickly what happens when Turkey equips its drones with air to air missiles to shoot down fighter jets?Because that's exactly what Turkey is planning to do.

@apple222sickly

3 жыл бұрын

Esa Shaik Hmmm i wonder why they invented laser warning receivers and countermeasures

@commandergeokam2868

3 жыл бұрын

@@esashaik7083 yes tgey will put stingers on the ucavs bayractar and ankici but always the fighters will have an edge on uavs because of the stronger radars

@esashaik7083

3 жыл бұрын

@@commandergeokam2868 Turkeys drones have stronger radars than its F16s

Given that the US has already gotten detailed information about the Armata and has developed ammunition that is able to penetrate the Armata's armor, and that the tank rounds for NATO are largely standardized (UK has to be an oddball), I'd say no, it won't rule future battlefields. Add to it that Russia cannot produce enough of them to replace combat losses in the event of a major war and it gets worse. Edit: Alright people, after MONTHS of this comment being up I finally noticed enough to say: UK No longer an oddball and has a smoothbore like all the other cool kids. Armata's even MORE fucked than it was before.

@anguswaterhouse9255

2 жыл бұрын

Uk no longer an oddball

@oldfrend

2 жыл бұрын

@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor proof? i doubt the russians would risk their prized new tank when they only have a handful and they're likely to be stolen by some ukrainian farmers and dragged off to poland where NATO would be happy to provide disassembly service.

@oldfrend

2 жыл бұрын

@Rolf\Alcoholic Chat Public Relation Supervisor did i say anything as stupid as fake news? i just wanted sources because i've been following the war pretty closely and i haven't seen anything about T-14s in battle. and hearing rumors is a long way from a firm confirmation, esp. if they haven't captured any, even from reliable sources.

@giovanni-ed7zq

2 жыл бұрын

depleted uranium rounds will go through that armata like butter. at 8 million dollars an armata, its just an expensive crematorium.

@justakettlehelm1673

Жыл бұрын

@@giovanni-ed7zq as true as that is, the US has been trying to shift away from DU since it's otherworldly amounts of expensive and using it is *technically* a war crime

23:50 "It's cost seems to be precluding its production in very high numbers." If you think that was a problem before Feb 2022, it's going to become an even bigger problem going forward. Tell me, can they build this without western microprocessors? China doesn't make microprocessors, you know. And I'm not sure it will be a good idea to load the Russian military with Chinese electronics. Every system will have excellent back doors you never find until China decides to turn off the entire Russian military.

@ralphmorgan6130

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. Russia has only produced about 20 T-14s to date. And given the financial and technological sanctions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they may not be able to produce very many, if any, for the next decade. Meanwhile Russia's actions will have boosted NATOs military spending by another 1% of GDP or so for the next decade. And since NATOs GDP is much higher than Russia's (and will be relatively less affected by the war and sanctions) the existing spending disparity (NATO spent 12x more than Russia in 2016, so will probably outspend Russia by 20x-25x each year for the next decade) will only increase. Looks like Putin's war will trigger a repeat of how Reagan's military spending v. USSR essentially bankrupted the USSR at the end of the cold war.

@giovanni-ed7zq

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphmorgan6130 everyone nows first 100 hours of air campaign if war starts. so that t-14 wont survive the air campaign. i think the idea of tank warefare and long lines of ground troops is obsolete idea now. you do that against american airforce, highway of death 2.

@Neion8

2 жыл бұрын

@@giovanni-ed7zq There's a difference between taking ground and keeping it - tanks are for the second-wave once the air-battle's been won to comb out any remaining hostile forces with less losses than you would get with pure infantry. Or, they should be at least *looks at Russia...* As for defence, a tank is significantly easier to hide than a jet (which normally needs an airstrip+hangars+all the equpiment needed to re-arm, repair and refuel it) - as all you need to do is drive to a position with a decent view and some foiliage, throw a camo net and drape some shrubbery over it - wait a week or so when the airstrikes have died down and the enemy convoys are coming in and then clean off and jump into the tank, fire off a few HE shells to decimate an incoming enemy convoy at many times the range of standard infantry anti-tank weapons - then relocate (while being entirely safe from any small-scale retaliation), cover up the tank and take cover in the 10 or so minutes it'll probably take for the enemy to scramble an airstrike. Also, don't forget that active defence systems exist and can be mounted on tanks now - so it'll take a lot more than a single missile to kill a modern western tank. Throw in the fact that countries like Germany have developed armour which can emulate different heat signitures to throw off enemy targeting/identification and they're far from irrelevent - they just have a lesser role now within combined arms doctrine than they did in previous conflicts.

@Bustermachine

2 жыл бұрын

​@@giovanni-ed7zq Not many countries can perform that sort of air dominance. Even for the USAF, which considers it a specialty of theirs, it's something that takes immense planning and concentration of resources and is even then only possible due to being a truly world class force.

@oyundashzeveg8883

2 жыл бұрын

@@giovanni-ed7zq the USAF is going to crumble like a crouton if they are going to fight anyone other than insurgents

The Armata won't be standard with the Guards Motorized rifle regiments/tank regiments until the late 2020s-2035. I'd say by 2035. They would have to phase out all the t-90s, 72BMs, and whatever 80Us they have left to make room.

@antoinelachapelle3405

3 жыл бұрын

They don't have to phase them out at all, they'll supply them on the cheap to Syria, Armenia, Iran, Egypt to further push their influence there without direct involvement.

@BobbyB1928

3 жыл бұрын

@Antoine Lachapelle They could export them but they would be in service with other countries even if those countries are in Russia's sphere of influence. Or the Russians would supply the leftover vehicles to the reservists or Cat B formations if those still exist (Cat B and C formations did during Soviet times).

@MrTangolizard

3 жыл бұрын

Metal 1974 reserve means dumped in a field and left to rot

@coconutshrimp707

3 жыл бұрын

And at that point they'll be obsolete

@jamesricker3997

3 жыл бұрын

By that time that Abrams replacement should be in Frontline service with the American military

"Lack of depression in the turret" Yeah, I don't have that problem, they can have some of mine.

So marginally better, and vastly more expensive... Looks like the Rus have learned in the F-35 school of weapons development.

@redneckturtle771

3 жыл бұрын

More like the F22... We have the F35 for sales to other countries, the F22 for home defense

@user-dz8wn7mh7w

3 жыл бұрын

Technical documentation on stealth technology was recieved from Russia in 1990-s. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev the Russians decided that stealth technology is a dead end and therefore did not develop these technologies

@natureblank1401

3 жыл бұрын

F-35 technology was bought from Soviet Union. It's Stealth design + formula and the vertical engine. So stop acting like F-35 is the last word in technology Russia had the technology 40 years before the F-35 was introduced LMAO. + F-35 will be absoloute against Russian air defence systems S-400 or S-500. Russia isn't Iraq or Afghanistan my friend.

@natureblank1401

3 жыл бұрын

@@hurryboi8558 Russians invaded Russia? What you smoking my friend?

@Dallasbird1975

3 жыл бұрын

@@natureblank1401 A gép gyártását 1978-ban kapta meg a Lockheed modern programokkal foglalkozó részlege, a kaliforniai Burbank-ben székelő Skunk Works. Az első gép 1981-ben szállt fel a Skunk Works 51-es körzet néven elhíresült Groom Lake bázisáról, alig 31 hónappal azután, hogy meghozták a sorozatgyártási döntést. Az első F-117A-t 1982-ben szállították le, a gépet 1983-ban állították hadrendbe és az utolsó Nighthawkot 1990-ben készítették el. A légierő 1988-ig tagadta a gép létezését, majd 1990 áprilisában egy F-117A-t kiállítottak a nevadai Nellis légibázison, ahova több tízezer látogatót vonzott. :P russia 1978 : moszkvics zaporozsec xD

Everybody gangsta until A-10 Warthog arrives...

@stanleyspadowski235

3 жыл бұрын

The GAU won’t penetrate modern tanks.

@Likeaworm

3 жыл бұрын

@@stanleyspadowski235 from the top it will and it will definitely fuck the engine bay.

@duanesamuelson2256

3 жыл бұрын

@@Likeaworm Robert is correct. Even the M1A1 was proof against a hard kill from an A10. Immobilize it yes (which in modern battle means it will become a hard kill). I knew the head design engineer at Chrysler Defense who designed the M1 gun system (who worked for my father before changing companies) as well as the engineer who designed the gau gun drive (my father). It was actually something considered as part of the design and something discussed during the armor tests. Oh and his top speed number for the M1 is way off and low and I assume its off for the others.

@JohnsonMalarkey

3 жыл бұрын

@A TV A-10 is a nice stationary target for the Pantsir, BUK-M3, TOR-M2U, S-300, S-350, S-400 and so on. Have a nice day. They can send A-10 to heLL, with just a simple click of a button.

@914050

3 жыл бұрын

The A-10 is fairly niche in the modern battlefield, as it is relatively slow and lacks stealth. It's main advantages are cost per mission/hour and ability to stay in an area for a long time (loiter time). It's great for asymmetrical warfare. However, anywhere that expensive modern assets like the T-14 are deployed would also likely have AA support sufficient to deter it. A more likely aerial threat would be smart bombs dropped from high altitude, for example, from an F35.

22:56 your map is in error. It colors the Crimean peninsula in the Russian colour.

"Peace was never an Option"

The last I heard the Russians can't afford to produce the T14,they were going to acquire only 20 copies of each variant,tank,BMP,Wrecker,bridge layer,and command and control vehicle, for a total of 100...

Hi Binkov, been watching your material for a bit and gotta say this was my favorite. Appreciate you differentiating between factual and estimates.

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" Ukraine: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@jaken005

2 жыл бұрын

Bayraktar has entered the chat

@danielcadwell9812

2 жыл бұрын

None were sent into Ukraine.

@theTutenstien

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielcadwell9812 yeah because there isnt enough of them because russia cant afford

@skaweimc

Жыл бұрын

@@jaken005 anti drone missile has Entered the chat

@skaweimc

Жыл бұрын

@@theTutenstien not really they have abt 100 of them

Lazerpig brought me here. This is comedy gold. "In some regards more advanced than NATO tanks".

@MrPickledede

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

It's the best ceremony tank ever since it's built for ceremonies only.

: Dmitri why your hat looks different today ?? : It is made of extra tank round, made one for you too...

Man this channel provides glimpses past the BS in so many ways.

@natureblank1401

3 жыл бұрын

This channel is a place for American narratives don't push the blame and act like it's a Russian Propoganda channel Lmao.

@anguswaterhouse9255

2 жыл бұрын

@@natureblank1401 "American naratives" roughly translates to "i don't like the fact my country would have the literal shit kicked out of it by the USA

@natureblank1401

2 жыл бұрын

@@anguswaterhouse9255 This applies to both sides, you know perfectly this is a Pro-US chanel full stop.

They have 10 T 14s, just 10. Three are prototypes. They were supposed to have 100 the first year. If people haven't been paying attention, tanks are no longer the weapons they were. Drones are the weapons that will win battles.

@Predator20357

2 жыл бұрын

Drones didn’t win the Afghanistan War Jokes aside, the T-14 suffers the problems of the Tiger 2, although we might never see how great they are fully, they were so lowly produced that 100 tanks on each front won’t help, maybe win a Skirmish but the war is lost just due to mobility alone

This has aged well!

"Will Russia’s Armata T-14 tank rule the future battlefields?" No because more than likely there won't be enough of them.

The only good tank is a moving tank

@Nobody-ob5od

3 жыл бұрын

Lol yup

@MrGreghome

3 жыл бұрын

How about helicopters?

@mabussubam512

3 жыл бұрын

Anti-tank guns: *"Allow us to inroduce ourselves"*

@julianshepherd2038

3 жыл бұрын

Drone "say hello to my leetle friend"

@royalteluis623

3 жыл бұрын

@@mabussubam512 “Explosive reactive Armour: “ *Allow us to introduce ourselves* “.

What T14....They can't make it. Its still not in production.

Very informative! Whenever I need a realistic battle discussion, I come here!

@76456

2 жыл бұрын

lol me too

You’re still buying into the brochure as if all these systems work flawlessly. In such a corrupt culture as modern Russia, problems with complex systems are hidden or downplayed so that everyone can report a positive result to their immediate superior. The design is impressive at arm’s length but the reality is that most Russian weapons are the products of cutting corners. Then consider who crews these tanks? the quality of Russian forces has been catastrophically overestimated against the obvious facts that they are very poorly paid and training is obviously deficient. If the T14 goes into battle as poorly protected by infantry as the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in Ukraine, they’ll be handled in the popular manner.

Having none of your offensive weaponry protected by some sort of armour has to have a lot of draw backs... Yes the crew is protected, but if your gun can be completely destroyed by a 25mm bushmaster it doesn’t matter how protected your crew is you may as well not even shown up... not to mention the crazy complex repairs that would be needed...

@Sturminfantrist

3 жыл бұрын

What crazy complex repair, its easy, change the Turret ! And dont underestimate the russian industry in case of War they will produce war material in all parts of their "empire" its a big country, dont make the same mistake like the germans in WW" and underestimate the russians

@dakkadakka4236

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sturminfantrist when did I even talk about the Russian industry or even attack/underestimate them... I simply comment on the massive drawback at having no armour on the turret.. Its Complex because you cannot do in on the roadside.. you will need a heavy crane not to mention logistics to get the million dollar turret to the location of repair.... without damage... if your primary way of fixing the turret is just swapping it out thats fine... but someone.. at some point just going to have to fix the turret...

@yorle6527

3 жыл бұрын

@@dakkadakka4236 i think its used so the round can penetrate intact before doing too much damage (less shrapnel damage) because most of tank combat casualties are caused by either dead crew or ammo rack blow up.

@dakkadakka4236

3 жыл бұрын

@@yorle6527 nah, I wouldn't think so as the crew are in their own armoured pod.. so even if the ammo does go up the crew are still safe... It just doesn't make sense to me.. yeah sure no crew are in the turret to be protected... but if you don't have the thing in the turret protected. That thing in the turret being your only form of attack, and it takes a hit it will be damaged and most likely unable to continue fighting in that battle.. where as any nato tank turret takes a hit there is a chance that it will be still be able to fight on..

@yorle6527

3 жыл бұрын

@@dakkadakka4236 i think the turret is made weak by design, so if an APFSDS hit the turret it will penetrate and go out the other way without causing too much damage. The turret isnt weak in all sides the important parts like the mantlet have a decent armor protection

Some Russian official is probably now sitting somewhere in an hidden office, his face burried in his hands as Binkov here is so expertly revealing all the aspects of their new tank.

@IceniBrave

3 жыл бұрын

He shakes his head, muttering, "It's a puppet, a fucking sock puppet", takes a final shot of vodka, and eats his pistol barrel

@aur485

3 жыл бұрын

@@IceniBrave What a shit in your heads?

@HOLOD48551

3 жыл бұрын

"expert"

@thedreamscripter4002

3 жыл бұрын

Not really. Binkov is hugely biased towards NATO in all videos when it touches the tech and quality of equipment. So his very slight and inconfident approval of T-14 actually speaks that even he couldn't disagree at how good that tank is, even though he would love to critisize it as much as possible.

@jerromedrakejr9332

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedreamscripter4002 Exactly!

The only advantages the Russian tanks had to offer were that they were simple, they were reliable, and they could be made in numbers. T-14 is complicated, expensive, will require a massive investment in training, and they'll never field a full division. It's a paper tank. In perfect conditions without dust and dirt, that tank is going to look pretty good. In the field, I doubt they'll be able to maintain them for any length of time. They made the classic mistake of building a weapon to fight the last war.

@tunisiandom9318

3 жыл бұрын

déjà vu ... same thing was said about Su-57 for years. "not even 5G", "Over rated" "as stealthy as an elefant in the savanna" and then when western specialists started admitting it is a new breed of fighters the criticism became "they cant use it" "too sophisticated" "too expensive to purchase" and when the contract for Su-57 was signed and manufacturng began they switched on to the T-14 ... Guys Chill, why are you even talking about costs and performance when the tank is still changing ... it did not pass tests yet, Chill boys XD

@mdeliyski

2 жыл бұрын

@@tunisiandom9318 buahahahaha, must be really difficult to even say, what you just did. Russian military equipment is the same as anything Russian. All crap.

@mdeliyski

2 жыл бұрын

Dude, Russian tanks were anything but reliable. You were lucky it the POS started.

NATO tank: exist in operation T14: does not exist in operation So this is not even a competition. T14 is a nice concept on paper, but Russia does not have the financial power to go from concept to operational use

We can assume that this tank uses steel, but we do not have reliable information about this.

@karolrawski2227

3 жыл бұрын

It may also be asbestos or polysterene - it all looks the same, when you put paint on it.

@Schnittertm1

3 жыл бұрын

We should assume that it uses an outer armor layer of steel and internally some kind of composite armor, just like all armor on modern MBT.

@76456

2 жыл бұрын

@@Schnittertm1 T-90 and T-72 use Nera plates of steel and rubber. Some Steel plates are improved whit other materials. T-80 uses Steel, high arden steel and Polimer/ceramic whit pockets.

Tractor towing hook installed?

9:08 I have to point out this error, those are just smoke launchers, the afganit aps is the two boxes with a bunch of charges on top of the turret

In Desert Storm Americans proved that ground army is a sitting duck without Air Superiority. As long as T-14 enjoys safe from air strike battleground then yeah why not.

At this point, it appears the first foe the T14 needs to beat is the budget

Lawls, people keep saying “this rank is better then the Abrams” but seem to forget that the Abrams is... 30 or 40 years old?

@sebastiansuteu1829

3 жыл бұрын

@Ruslan Masinjila you dumb or what? You compare a tank made in 2015 to one made in the 80's

@garyfoale3707

3 жыл бұрын

@@sebastiansuteu1829 if the Abram's is still being fielded as an MBT, then it's a valid comparison. I'd imagine the US is also testing and developing, so once they start producing the next generation tank, it will be compared with the Armata, as that's what it'll be potentially fighting.

@aksmex2576

3 жыл бұрын

Has the m1 received upgrades to its armor or gun in the 50 years of its service?

@swietoslaw

3 жыл бұрын

@@garyfoale3707 In fact US is making another modification to Abrams and next gen tank no earlier then in 20 years. And btw Armata is not really better, becasue for one thing we dont have specs (and I just dont thing Russia will have the same level of communication combat awareness like west) its not really fielded. and in fact this whole project just have some objectives (light weight, crew protection) but it probably with cost of combat effectiveness

@tsumibito5796

3 жыл бұрын

@@aksmex2576 yes the current versions are kinda a monster.

An Israeli soldier told me that it says on the instruction panel of a T-62 tank that "the driver must be small and strong". I have limited personal experience, just the M113 I drove in Germany, but it seemed to me like combat effectiveness could degrade over time if the crew had to work in cramped positions.

@lukedalton

2 жыл бұрын

Soviet doctrine, the general way of thinking was that a war with NATO will have lasted a couple of week at max before it ended with a victory by one side or mutal annihilation...so why work and spend to make confortable something that will last a couple of days if not hours in war at max

Whenever Russia shows a new toy they end up not having the funding so lol

@willkanoff

3 жыл бұрын

Just keep telling yourself that LOL

@TheCerebralDude

3 жыл бұрын

Will Kanoff They have already stopped producing T-14

@randomeastasian347

3 жыл бұрын

Will Kanoff XD because it’s true moron

@willkanoff

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheCerebralDude Whatever floats your boat dude....

@TheCerebralDude

3 жыл бұрын

Will Kanoff facts float my boat 🚣‍♀️

Interesting to see, that especially the newer Gen (at least NATO, don't know for Russia) autocannons are more and more optimized to be able to mission kill the optics of battle tanks, something that was considered in the development of Puma's weaponry and the related precision - if you can't penetrate them that easy anymore, first overfeed hardkill, then destroy sensors, day over.

@statebriga5298

3 жыл бұрын

And you think you can kill all the sensors with just one hit ? And, then....next move is his

I wouldn't count on them ruling any battlefield when military tech has sort of evolved away from the traditional battlefield and either moved towards American-style air superiority or low-tech terrorists tactics. A tank is great to have as support once you've got a position you want to hold onto, but in reality you shouldn't expect to see much tank on tank fighting any more... unless Russia and China decide to have a go at each other.

@TGBurgerGaming

2 жыл бұрын

In a short war or a war where enemy air defense's aren't a factor that makes sense. After two years of attrition you can count on America slowly running out air assets and having to be more careful, that doesnt factor in what happens when they can't establish air dominance to begin with.

@anguswaterhouse9255

2 жыл бұрын

@@TGBurgerGaming The USAF is 12,000 planes overall with 100 f-35's coming off the line every year in peace time which would increase in war. China+russia have less planes than us believe me you don't base your military stratagy around air power unless you're REALLY wanting to dominate

@TGBurgerGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@anguswaterhouse9255 have you seen the simulations for modern air wars? Guided missiles reduce the survival rate to around 3% for pilots regardless of which side you're on. You can expect expensive planes to be used sparingly soon after the first few engagements and replacements to be cheaper and easier to mass produce, only less advanced. There's no way the US establishing air dominance over the South China sea let alone the mainland with any kind of ease. Most simulations show entire carrier groups being lost. Russia would be a similar problem with the added issue of geography. You can't send enough planes to dominate an area that big.

@kordellswoffer1520

2 жыл бұрын

@@TGBurgerGaming no one said it be easy but it be done, the us and it's allies have absolute air superiority, they would see heavy losses but would in the end completely or near completely control the skies. These situations aren't good arguments as they are usually unfair and stacked against the us forces and unrealistic as that's the whole point of it.

@aaroncabatingan5238

2 жыл бұрын

@@TGBurgerGaming If these simulations were created by American or Eastern Bloc nations, then you probably shouldn't trust it. For propaganda purposes the Russian and Chinese military liked to hype up their military. The American military on the other hand like to make their own military look weak to ask for more funding from Congress.

“The T-14 is using one generation newer reactive armor plates than those on the T-90” okay so the T-72’s had cardboard and garbage in the reactive panels. The T-90’s had blocks of old rubber. What comes after old rubber in the development tree? Plywood?

It is always misleading to compare one isolated weapon with another isolated weapon. All weapons operate within a tactical system of combined arms, command, control, communication and intelligence. All of this has to be considered when comparing one MILITARY and how it operates against another.

IIRC, I remember Jordan having a tank with an unmanned turret. It's a Chally 1 with an unmanned turret similar to Armata or STH.

@highjumpstudios2384

3 жыл бұрын

And to date it’s never found a buyer. Even in the Jordanian army.

@mayuri4184

3 жыл бұрын

@@highjumpstudios2384 Maybe it is because Chally 1 is obsolete. I dunno.

@thundberdbolt_2584

3 жыл бұрын

The Jordanian army is filled with ariete's today. I guess the challenger 1 with the unmanned turret was indeed obsolete.

@theweirdlookingcat8062

3 жыл бұрын

I remember seeing a bastardised Challenger 1 that had been turned into an APC some years ago in Combat and Survival magazine

@appleholo2336

3 жыл бұрын

HMS Belfast the challenger 1 is still used in some countries as supporting tanks

This is no doubt a top of the line great tank. Interesting to see the Russians scrapping their old doctrine of quantity over quality in favour of better units lately.

@ravenknight4876

3 жыл бұрын

Quantity just isn't feasable anymore, as russia isn't one of the most populous countries anymore.

@SuperLusername

3 жыл бұрын

@@ravenknight4876 Russia has barely ever been one of the most populous countries. Even in 1930s Soviet population was 160 million of which only about 110-120 was actual, Russians. That would put them on par with Americans. And sunce ww2 it has only been downhill for Russia and rest of Europe compared to the rest of the world.

@Waltham1892

3 жыл бұрын

Russia's new military doctrine is neither quality nor quantity. Its, "what can we drag out of storage to make people think we've got a functioning procurement program..."

@karlhans6678

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperLusername the fact that the soviets in ww2 were able to throw away so many lives proves and still have divisions of tanks and infantry streaming towards Germany proves you wrong.

@kelamullah1999

3 жыл бұрын

Russia never engaged in a quantity over quality doctrine.

So in conclusion, the only way to see if the T-14 is going to be combat effective is to have the crew train in tactics then put the T-14 into combat to get real time information to get upgrades or advancements in tactics with the T-14 crews input!

9:00 those are the smoke launchers and the smaller things on top are the aps banks

And now there's the Challenger 3.

@super_slav_6183

3 жыл бұрын

only thing that can save challenger 3 from being behind abrams sepv3 , leos and russian tanks is aps

@-exodus-_

2 жыл бұрын

@@super_slav_6183 which it has

@stephen2583

2 жыл бұрын

@@super_slav_6183 and the fact is has the best armour in the world, but thanks everyone else for showing up.

@super_slav_6183

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephen2583 sure m8, that armour wont prottec against modern ammunition

@stephen2583

2 жыл бұрын

@@super_slav_6183 Says who? No country in the world has access to british armour so no one in the world can test to see how effective or ineffective their weapons would be. And as the armour is uniquely different from any other armour in the world you cannot make a comparative test.

The North Korean Pok Pung Ho MK3 with cold nuclear fusion power reactor for propulsion is also excellent! Its the only Nuclear Fusion powered land vehicle!

@NotWorthTheAirIBreathe

3 жыл бұрын

You must be sarcastic because fusion power doesn't exist yet and the Pokpung Ho is a t-62 with a lengthened hull.

@jc.1191

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣 That's why your country is the only one dark at night on satellite. All that free, limitless energy you say?

@Schlipperschlopper

2 жыл бұрын

@@jc.1191 its not my country but northkorea switches over to infrared light to prevent imperialist air raid attacks or drone survey. Everyone in North Korea ownes nightvision glasses.

@jc.1191

2 жыл бұрын

@@Schlipperschlopper Paid troll, you have transparent arguments. We have satellite and gps data, we know where you are at. We also can see infrared and radar frequencies. You aren't scientifically educated are you? Maybe try that, good use of your time.

@Schlipperschlopper

2 жыл бұрын

@@jc.1191 You that North Korea has the best peoplespizza, hamburgers and spaghetti? North Korea rules the world!!!! North Korea also makes the best Shisha tobacco, cigars and whisky! Dont miss their superb soy sauce and kimchi!

as far as I know, the afganite protection launches one of the cylinders vertically from the top of the turret and then the cylinder explodes with a directed explosion towards the incoming projectile. The frontal horizontal cylinders are smoke screen. But I might be mistaken. Still there is a video on youtube showing this active protection in action with and without slow motion camera.

APS at Armata give 270 degree protection. It has pretty complicated system tracking incoming projectile and turning the turret automatically on it to deploy countermeasures. Moreover, if missile launched from open space, it can automatically detect start point of the guided missile and fire HEAT round there to destroy launcher and operator.

@qinarizonaful

2 жыл бұрын

Probably can't do both at the same time for off axis incoming... as both require the turret to point in the incoming direction, and the incoming is there before the turret (any turret) can slew. So... simply wait until the turret slews away... and 🔥 fire your AT weapon... this is the Infantry diversion and attack routine.

@killer3000ad

Жыл бұрын

Actually the APS doesn't work. THe Chinese were thinking of purchasing it but discovered that the APS system doesn't work as advertised and relies on the crew visually seeing an incoming ATGM travelling at the speed of sound and then activating the APS.

It doesn't really matter how good/bad T-14 is, as Russia can't afford to build them in significant numbers anyway.

@user-zf8es3jd3r

3 жыл бұрын

But if they give the weapon blueprints to China, that might be a bigger issue......

@TheZachary86

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn't matter if they can sell them? It's not the Russian military budget. It's the Russian exports industry

@cristobalalvarez5491

3 жыл бұрын

It’s obsolete to the k2 black panther

@kden9772

3 жыл бұрын

@Swagerino Albino This is true. why use the most advanced tank in the world to kill terrorists. All you need for that is some good ERA and a big gun, which T72s and T90s have

@itsdomd0misticn00b7

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-zf8es3jd3r I honestly think that's a bad idea since I have a feeling that China will betray Russia, just like most countries that China helped. An example is Sri Lanka, I heard China used the dept trap so Sri Lanka doesn't have enough money to pay China back so China "claims" that port now. If Russia does that, China might betray Russia too...

I feel like I'm watching a video about the best new battleship design in 1945. Fascinating perhaps, but ultimately probably pretty worthless in a modern conflict.

@worldoftancraft

2 жыл бұрын

Did you just cancel the entire idea of "armoured object"?

@schiefer1103

2 жыл бұрын

Well, tanks aren’t what we like to think pf them as, at least not anymore. However, it is as of yet not possible to replace them because no military has been able to come up with a system that can plug the holes left in the doctrine by removing tanks, so they aren’t dead *yet.*

I remember about 10 years ago people were saying that tanks have become close to obsolete. I don’t think that’ll ever happen. Even if it’s not the most ideal tool for the job, I think it’s hard for a general to resist the sheer show of muscle and force a tank has on the battlefield. It’s like having a novel character or car in a video game...even though it’s effectiveness might be debatable compared to the newer characters or cars, it’s impossible to not want to use it.

@sebode87

3 жыл бұрын

The same might've once been said about battleships, now they no longer exist

@giovanni-ed7zq

2 жыл бұрын

tanks and troops mop up whats left after planes come through. if you dont have air superiority you wont have tanks left after the first 100 hours.

First of all Russia is struggling to get the new engine working. They are finding that higher technology items are much harder to build than they expected and they are running into massive quality issues and cost overruns. The current prototypes are using an older engine with far less power, so the rated speeds and range are only expected stats if the engine actually lives up to the stats they hoped. The armor on the T-14 around the crew is really good, but the armor on the back half, rear, top... an especially the turret is weak. The tank is massive, but the weight is not that bad, so all the physical armor is only to protect the crew. It is so weak in the back that they added the cages to protect the engines from hits from a simple RPG. The turret has even less armor. They are relying too heavily on their active defenses. They have the same dazzler system that current TOW missiles have been programmed to encode to bypass and their active armor is also bypassed by the new TOW with the addition of a 1 meter rod on the end to prematurely detonate it. They also have their tubes under the turret to shoot down incoming missiles, but they have a VERY limited arc. None of the defenses work against the a sabot round and the new round for the M1A2 Sep 3 is strong enough to pernitrate the armor already, but they will be facing the M1A3 likely by the time they ever deploy the T-14. The active armor and dazzler system is the same s what was on the upgraded T-90 and they still suffered roughly 50% casualties from the TOW BGM-71E in Syria. They sent 30 and lost 10 of them. There is a top down version of the TOW now that would bypass all the active defenses of the T-14. 10% lower armor on the turret!?!? You mean it is only 10%. The armor is only about 1/2 to 3/4" of steal. A 50 cal will rip through it. Russia has stated many times the whole design idea of the tank was armor to protect the crew as the priority and the turret was very vulnerable and that they rely heavily on their active defenses. These tanks are going to be taken out instantly in combat... but the crew will likely survive. This tank is a joke. In the end it will not matter as they have drastically cut orders because the price of oil dropped so low and 80% of their tanks are still the old T-72.

@thatlawnmowerguy9

3 жыл бұрын

It will do fine, tanks with virtually no armour can still work effectively if they have better mobility/gun.

@toddabbott781

3 жыл бұрын

@@thatlawnmowerguy9 Until someone gets a lock on it. It is too easy to take out a tank. An F-35 can carry something like 24 Spear-3 missiles and those would make minced meat of any tank. Russia could not maintain air superiority against the US let alone with the EU added in. After that tanks become pretty worthless.

It really depends on who has the air superiority.

tanks only fear of air attack, no matter how advanced it is !!! Take an example in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict tanks are like target practice for drones even the Armenia and Karabakh has air defence system.

@MPdude237

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah. This hasn't come to fruition much since most conflicts since the collapse of the USSR has been against smaller countries or unconventional units who lack the funding for good air support. In a conventional war against better funded armies, I could see MANPADs being mounted onto existing armored vehicles to protect against air attack. A .50 wont cut it today as any aerial threats to armor are too far, too fast, or too armored for an M2 or NSV(even a RWS equipped one) to be a real threat.

@koc988

3 жыл бұрын

@@MPdude237 look up what happened to iraqs air defence system

@natureblank1401

3 жыл бұрын

That's why air defence systems exist LMAO

Newest update to Abrams has the gas guzzling turbine replaced with the German leopard Diesel engines. So that’s not a factor anymore.

Im a Russian myself , and the thing is the Russians although advertise it alot , they wont use them as much , as our Main tanks are still T-90s and 80s and 72s B3 The Armata is somewhat of a support tank? Like best way i can explain it is imagine a Maus tank , it wouldnt be alone and would sort of sit back and take enemies out while the main battle is going on. Due to its powerful sights and such I belive it will be somewhat of a sniper tank , sitting back , taking a hit or too while being in a hull down position , not running around the battlefield like a crazy man.

@MGZetta

3 жыл бұрын

No shit. If it can see and shoot further, it doesn't need to meat shield t72. Lmao.

Speed in MPH >_

I love how T14, a completely new developed tank, is compared against tanks that are already 40 years old.

@burnttoaster6313

3 жыл бұрын

Man your dumb

@peterstubbs5934

3 жыл бұрын

And Chally 2 and Abrams would kick its arse

@peterstubbs5934

3 жыл бұрын

@@burnttoaster6313 Says the man who cant spell "youre"

@Rssika

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterstubbs5934 Unlikely, Challenger 2 is getting old. Chinese and japanese MBTs are already ahead of it.

@mariojakel5544

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rssika how many T14 are in the russian Army and how many get the Army in the future? compare it to number of all T72 Types like the T90(T-72BU) T-72B3.... the T14/T15 are to expensive, a total of 132 T14/T15 is not a lot

It will have to make it thru a parade without breaking down first.

As always seems like a fair and accurate assessment given the information available.

Putin can't afford enough T-14s to matter. Just like he can't afford more than a few Su-57s lol.

@EcsMurphy

3 жыл бұрын

You can't really compete with US Daddy warbucks

@ravenknight4876

3 жыл бұрын

@@EcsMurphy not conventionally anyways. That's also why I think Armata was a mistake. Sure, it may be the best for a while, but the west will just build an equivalent or something better, and then replace their entire arsenals. The tech edge just won't last.

@nodzeratul

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao it doesn't matter how many little toys putin can afford since he have nukes. At least according to your logic

@BenDover-hc6vx

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t know much about T-14 data or production quantity for Russian army. But the reason Russia decided to reduce SU 57 or PAK-FA was because India Cucked Russia in the mid and late stage of development. So basically India approached the Russians to develop 5th gen stealth fighters when China came up with their own “claims” 5th gen J20. India was supposed to contribute equally in the research and development of SU57 but after the first prototype India showed little to no interest claiming they want 2 seater version of SU57. Russians disagreed saying it will decrease the operational payload and need for new design and in the late stage of development india pulled off from the deal leaving Russians to fend off for them self. And by the time Russia developed everything from the scratch again the 5th gen fighters were already entered service in US and China. And they were developing their new 6th gen Stealth drones. And Russia decided to reduce the number of SU57 production and focus on stealth drones. they have already started work and few prototypes of those ironically it looks just like B2 spirit (US) bomber.

@kurousagi8155

3 жыл бұрын

Raven Knight I disagree. The T-72 and T-90 platforms are clearly outclassed by their Western equivalents in a significant manner. The Russians were right to develop a new platform and to move away from their outdated equipment.

Interesting video, and nice to see a candid discussion about how rapidly Russia (in 2020) could field these tanks. My thought is that, 1) they need more of them, now; 2) but, given budget constraints and further pressure due to sanctions related to the (in my opinion) absolutely catastrophic decision to invade Ukraine, will push this window out - way out. The narrator mentions crew protection in the T-14. If memory serves, the T-90s currently serving in Ukraine have a similar setup, and yet we see burnt-out rusted hulks, trackless and without turrets, in almost every photo. If I were appointed a driver, I may well get my affairs in order pronto. Not to argue that the same might be applicable to **any** tank, just to note that the removal of personnel from the turret may have limited benefits - if any.

Good video most fair look! Which unlike the su-57 I would say the T-14 is a true next-gen tank if only until the west makes one. Also without senors, you still have the backup sight in the Abrams which is the classic scope next to the gun like in a Sherman. If that fails you could just open up the bore and sight down it or just act as artillery and keep missing until you hit.

We also call the Armata "POTEMKIN -14" internally, it is so expensive and complicated that there are only about 40 fully equipped vehicles and they are not uniform, all of them still test vehicles. It is also very controversial whether an exclusively digital transmission to the command room can prove itself on the battlefield. There are already considerations of simply destroying the sensors of this tank with a Gau 61 or an MK from 2000m and thus making it incapable of fighting and turning it off. .

@worldoftancraft

2 жыл бұрын

Ну ты больше повопи, поной, и порассказывай о местных понятиях, чтобы эт-самое, поддержку моральную сыскать. Потёмкин-14, бл`эать

@34Realist

2 жыл бұрын

@@worldoftancraft Вы должны пить шнапс, пока он еще в рыбе.

@vladraduandrei5227

Жыл бұрын

there are nowhere near 40 t14 armatas in use...more like 14

T-14 armatta : im a new gen tank!! A-10 thunderbolt: ow, wow, BRRRRRRRRRRT

@dan8085

3 жыл бұрын

SU-25: A-10, you a cute little boy

@diegoivanxv8554

3 жыл бұрын

Stupid

@vaikkajoku

3 жыл бұрын

Please. The gau8 was obsolete as an antitank weapon before the plane even flew.

@spartanx9293

3 жыл бұрын

@@dan8085 the SU 25's Canon socks real anti-tank fans use Apaches

@springtrappooper9311

3 жыл бұрын

@@dan8085 SU-25 dont BRRRRRRRT A-10 BRRRRRRRT A-10 wins

Let's not forget: M1 Abrams: >10,000 built. Manufacturing ongoing T-14 Armata: ~20 built from 100-ordered

@jamesgartland9702

3 жыл бұрын

@MARIO VALENTIN ZAMUDIO DOMINGUEZ usa has thousands.many more in storage.and open upgrde production

@DerDop

3 жыл бұрын

@MARIO VALENTIN ZAMUDIO DOMINGUEZ russia has per capita lower than some balkan countries. Realism beats love.

@DerDop

3 жыл бұрын

@MARIO VALENTIN ZAMUDIO DOMINGUEZ also you must be naïve to think that USA doesnt have its own Armada...

@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ

3 жыл бұрын

Let's not forget you need to manufacture that many when you don't know how to use them

@EasternVikingTradeCompanyJSC

3 жыл бұрын

USA has 1605 M1A2SEPv2, not 10k

That smooth segway doe

The Armata has an impressive gun barrel. The turret is situated more towards the rear of the tank, otherwise would the long gun barrel have created issues? Imagine the turret situated more to the front, to the extent that after the Armata climbs over an obstacle, on it's way down, it will be more prone facing down on the ground, before being on the way up.

Only in CGI movies... It's a science fiction tank.

@mbtenjoyer9487

2 жыл бұрын

Lol nope

@Szarko32c

2 жыл бұрын

@@mbtenjoyer9487 ok, so send it to Ukraine if it's real. Win the war!

The era of the tank as the main component in advancing on the ground has passed

@TheCerebralDude

3 жыл бұрын

@David Uriel Heavy armor wiped out recently by drones in Syria

@burnttoaster6313

3 жыл бұрын

No it hasn’t

@TheCerebralDude

3 жыл бұрын

@@burnttoaster6313 1 They are too heavy to moved to a conflict zone quickly and in large numbers 2 They absorb a huge amount of resources to keep them operating in combat. An Abrams needs like 6 gallons of fuel PER MILE 3 They have become extremely vulnerable to the latest drones and air launched anti tank weapons

@neurofiedyamato8763

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheCerebralDude Modern remote weapon stations have equally as good sensors and fire control as the main gun. It can make short work of tiny drones in anti-air role. Not to mention increasing use of jammers onboard tanks as soft kill. Not just against missiles, but IEDs and suicide drones. Also something isn't obsolete unless 1) something does its job better, or 2) it is rendered incapable of fulfilling its role. Neither of these criteria have been met. Nothing does what a tank does better than a tank. Nor are the current anti-tank weapons sufficient at stopping a tank force from doing its job effectively. Syrian tanks are not modern and is a whole generation and possible 2 behind the developed world. There wasn't small suicide drones in the 70s. Syrian tanks don't have the current generation of fire control computers for their main gun. Let alone remote weapon stations. Of course they will do poorly.

@TheCerebralDude

3 жыл бұрын

@@neurofiedyamato8763 1 Something does do it’s job better, attack helicopters. They are far easier to move in force to far away war zone they are faster can return to support bases to refuel and rearm; and can match tanks in firepower I

I’ve not got a lot of experience working around tanks, but I do make a lot of models, and I was surprised at how big T-14 is, i found it’s similar in size to the Israeli Merkava

@theprogressivecynic2407

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, sure, but the Merkeva 4 is 10 tons of armor and weapons heavier, but still slightly faster. Also, it has an APS system (Trophy) that actually works and a mount for a choice of mortar, grenade launcher, or drone launcher. Basically, the Merkeva is more defended, hits harder, and is faster than the Armata, with the main downside that it is a fuel-hungry monster that can't easily function in a range of environments (eg. it wouldn't work well in Russian mud).

I know all the sensors are protected but, are they protected enough to still work right after being hit by a high explosive round on the outside? If i was in an inferior tank and i knew my "AP" rounds probably weren't going to pen, I might try blinding the tank by damaging its sensors with HE.

Has guzzling Abrhams tank? The alternative is diesel engines you can hear coming from miles away.

The real question is: will new tanks such as T-14 and MGCS will keep tanks feasible in conventional symmetric warfare. My guess is, we might be witnessing the last generation of tanks. At least until we have a significant revolution in armor design, active defenses or energy shields. Tanks are like battleships from the old days, big heavy armored slow vehicles that want to brawl. But now we got too many counters that are simply too effective.

@NotOurRemedy

2 жыл бұрын

This aged well. Javelins and other ATGMs. Phew. How many times will a tank have used its main gun on hardened targets in the entire Russo Ukrainian war?

@kananparasapinas804

2 жыл бұрын

But they can be use for terrorist. So i dont think having them as an internal security as a waste. Here in my country we need tanks due jungle fighting and open areas

@patwilson2546

Жыл бұрын

The death of the tank has been forecast many times. Tanks are a good countermeasures system away from retaining relevancy. Without that countermeasure system they are targets. With one, they remain an incredibly useful element of a modern army.

The Armata is probably one of the better tanks in the world today. In a one-on-one fight, Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, and Leclercs will likely have a slightly harder time dealing with it (and the T-90M). Fortunately, one-on-one fights rarely ever happen.

@appleholo2336

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of it depends on the type of ammunition your using you can have a take that was made 60 years ago take out a m1 or armata with newer ammunition