- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
The problem was how to use every tank properly. If you know how to use, even the vintage T55 or chinese tanks could also do pose some potent deterrence against enemy
@@sanurawat1651 Even you give arabs the best tanks they would still screwed up, keep in mind that most arabs had little to no experience of tank warfare or strategy. Just look at iraq, saudi arabia, iran, syria, to name a few. Most of their tank regiments have suffered severe losses against militias.
Could you please do a video where you describe what you believe a world class tank should be like. It’s doesn’t have to be a existing one but maybe get different parts and put them together
German optics, Gun (130mm), FCS and engine. Russian ERA, autoloader and APS American DU Composite armor, multi purpose HE and DU KE round South Korean KE top attack round Crewless turret, blow out ammo panels, reduced thermal and radar signature, hybrid drive and a 20mm coaxial cannon.
The T-14 is *thee* GREATEST tank ever designed! It cannot be destroyed by any other tank, not even at point-blank-range. It is armed with a 16-inch naval gun that is accurate to 24 miles. It can drive along the ocean floor at close to 50 knots. It can fly! It can shoot down fighter jets, satellites, you name it! And it is equipped with the PIONEER FH-X830BHS Double Din Stereo system. It even has an ice cream maker! ... *(JUST DON'T TAKE IT TO A PARADE.)*
Problem with t14? It is first Russian tank to get rid of famous Emergency Turret Ejection system xaxaxa In all seriousness, t14 is actually pretty cool tank.
It acualy is not. Autoloader in T-14 still takes rounds from the magazine on the floor under the turret (if loaded), so any hit in it and T-14 turret goes as high as its predecessors :P
What really boggles me about the T14 is how the Russians have somehow made a tank with a larger footprint after using design features that’s supposed to make the tank smaller.
The reason for that is that modern FCS and Anti Tank munitions can easily hit tanks no matter the size, according to Zaloga M1A1 tanks knocked out several T-72 tanks from 4km back in 1991 Gulf War, that was 30 years ago, modern FCS have even further advanced, size no longer matters. Another reason why is because they needed space for long APFSDS projectiles, new Vacuum is reported to be ~1m long, so they needed space to fit them inside, as well as provide enough space and comfort for the entire crew to be stationed in the hull. Those are some of the reasons I could think of at the top of my head, there could be more.
Because that "smaller, thus harder to hit" it's true but not a big difference in combat. Situational awareness, ergonomics and those soft characteristics are the ones you need to bet on.
@@medina5129 I think he means the modern tank engagements are not realistic in WarThunder modern tanks always fight in a 1 km radius sometimes you get 2 km sniped but that's spawn to spawn
@@hon3ybear538, because for ULTRA REALISTIC combat sim, you go for IL-2 tank battles mode, and GL finding 4-6, sometimes 7 players to man these tanks (GL getting 7 players to coordinate inside a Tortoise)... War thunder SB is entry level Simulator and WT as a whole is a basic simulator game tbh.... The game wouldn't be running had they gone full DCS style on multi crew vehicles
Couple of small details: On top attack munition: I does not really matter as much if the tank is destroyed on a battlefield. The more important aspect is if the tank is able to keep fighting. Top attack munition taking out the gun would mean a 'mission kill' (Tank is not able to help the outcome of the current fight any further) and this would be enough for the enemy combatant. On a strategic view it is of course more valuable to completely destroy a tank, but it is not the main pirority in a battle (Unless, ofcourse, you have the chance to de so). On the commanders visiblity: The importance of all round visability very much depends on who uses the tanks. From what I have heard American tankers in Iraq usually fought with hatches open, even in enviroments with relatively high treat levels. Russian tankers on the other hand are trained to fight mostly with closed hatches. This means the location of the hatches are much less a problem for the Russians then it would be if it was an american tank. Having said that, being able to look out over the tank means the commander has a better understanding of the area around him (Full 360 with added depth perception that you don't get with a computerscreen) has some significant advantages on the commanders tactical level. Another small problem I have is that a human eye is currently still beter then a pixelated screen. I however have to add that I do not know the quality of the screens in T-14, so this might not even be a problem. After this I want to repeat what you already said in the video: I am only looking for problems with the tanks, not calling it a bad tank. T-14 does something revolutionairy for tank design, so it is to be expected there are things that might need to be worked on or are part of the compromise for a uncrewed turret. The top attack munition story I posted above here goes for all tanks, and is a lot worse for tanks that have crews in the turret (Crewmembers are a lot harder to replace then gunbarrel or breaches, especially to their family). T-14 is an amazing vehicle, and one of the only of the next generation tanks. I really hope to be able to see one someday, hopefully not as an adversery :). Also I want to say that I really enjoy your videos, I always enjoy learning new things about tanks and seeing the flaws as well as merits of alle tanks. Would love to know what you think about the points I just made :).
American tankers in Iraq fought with hatches open because their M1A1 tanks had no CITV so commander really had no sight to look around. And during combat today everyone uses CITV to look around because it is far easier to spot targets because pretty much everyone uses camo. Today there is no reason to fight with the hatch open because you risk getting wounded (like that american tanker who got blinded by RPG) or even getting killed, not to mention that you have way less chances of spotting the target. The only reason why you would open the hatch and look around is when you are not in combat so it makes no difference.
@@azrael9016 I admit that spotting will be primarily done with the CITV in modern tanks (Even if only for the thermal capabilities). The biggest downside then would be medium threat enviroments. Here The commander could normally turn out to get a good lay of the land without exposing himself to much (With the benifits of full 360 3d vision in the highest possible resolution). Now the commander would have to completely leave the tank to look around like this (Which wil mean he probably won't bother and as such will have a lesser view of the battlefield). Having said that, I think the crewless turret is worth more than this downside, but that does not mean it still exists. But thanks for your reaction! I did not remember the M1A1 did not have CITV (Even though I watched the video from RedEffect about it), so thank you for correcting me!
MrJoe99998 one problem I would just like to add on with t 14 unmanned turret is the crew have no way to enter it from inside the tank they would have to leave the tank and enter through a maintenance hatch where other tanks most compartments are accessible inside the tank and it is harder to replace a person than a tank which is why a missing loader can be a down side for example if the gunner becomes unconscious the loader can resume his position where in t 14 that is not the case
While intended as a joke, it is unironically true. Tanks, in a modern environment are consumable resources, the more expensive they are, the less likely it is to keep the foodchain going. It doesn't matter if it costs 1 Million or 100 Million, all tanks burn the same. Also the reason why no Leopard or Challenger is a game changer when there are hand full of them.
One point i believe you might be wrong is that both T-14 and T-15 seem to have AESA radars . You can see 4 radar antenas on the 4 corners of T-14 turret ( T-15 has them aswell ) and considering their position and angle it's safe to say that those cover the entire top hemisphere , some say those are the same used on Su-57 sides to cut cost but yeah regardless that would give T-14 the possibility to know when a Javeline and such is being launched at it . You can also see this being advertised in UVZ commercials .
I feel like the T-14 will be like the Tiger. Mechanical breakdowns and fuel shortages will plague them and when they do actually get to the front they will be too scarce to make a difference, no matter how technologically superior they might be.
If I remember correctly the reason there aren't many T-14's is because the Russians have more or less given up on them in favor of upgrading their T-90's since they can upgrade 3 or 4 of them for the cost of a single T-14. It is a huge improvement over its predecessors in terms of crew survivability, but it terms of combat performance it's a bit hard to say that one of them is worth 3 T-90's that can do about as well.
Yeah he's recently got upset about that and so made an unnecessary video criticising another youtubers t14 video in which they say it's absolutely terrible
@@yorkshire_tea6875Um, if you didn't watch his video just say that. Don't make up things he didn't say. He was wrong about the 50+ T-14s, but that has nothing to do with his critique.
From what I understand, the turret is very lightly armored and doesn't take much to disable. It's a good design concept in principle, but it seems like they just didn't follow through on the design potential in order to save weight. It's a design dilemma faced by warship designers back in the age of dreadnought battleships, so there is actually a pretty close precedent for this in military technology. Naval designers struggled for decades trying to find the right blend between speed, firepower, and protection. Warships of similar design concept to the T-14 were produced in the 1930's by such navies as the German Kriegsmarine. The Deutschland class Panzerschiff was a heavy cruiser sized warship with extremely heavy armament for its size, decent speed, but poor armor protection for ships systems. The ammunition magazines were well protected to prevent a catastrophic magazine detonation but everything else was exposed. The KMS Graf Spee met its end when these shortcomings were were highlighted in 1939. Graf Spee had a significant advantage over the much lighter British cruisers she was engaged by in terms of firepower and should have been able to overpower them easily at range. What actually ended up happening however, is that they managed to score many hits against Graf Spee, which due to her completely inadequate protection, managed to inflict enough damage that she could not escape without significant repairs.
Hiya. As an experienced tankie, there is one thing that really worries me about this vehicle and that is what happens when the cameras get covered with mud and snow? In a normal tank, you'd just drop the vision block, replace it with a spare and clean it as you'd progress. For the most part this is an issue only for the driver, because the mud thrown up by the tracks tends to stay at hull level, unless you lose one of your front track shrouds. Remember that each track is really just a great big conveyor belt that picks up what you are driving on and trundles it towards the front of the vehicle. In really muddy conditions, as a tank driver, I could be replacing a vision block every 30 seconds, or so. I'm an Australian, so I don't know about operating in snow, but in a dusty environment, it isn't long before literally everything is caked with the really fine dust that gets literally everywhere, including the gun sights, which need to be cleaned regularly. Obviously things get worse if you have the misfortune to be working in close proximity to other vehicles, which are also throwing dust. As far as tank crew commanders not needing to look back, that often, that isn't correct. Every time you come out of a turret down, or similar position, you are reversing back away from the crest, because going straight over a hill is asking for trouble. Good drivers will always find the low ground and stick in that. Even in the middle of seemingly flat terrain a good driver will often find the one bit of low ground that puts the tank at hull down to the surrounding plain. But when reversing they rely on the crew commanders to be able to provide directions, lest they back into a tree, rock, or other such obstacle. In the T-14, the driver will most likely have direct access to rear facing cameras, but if these are placed in the hull, you magnify problems with mud and dirt, as the arse end of a tank is filthy. If placed in the turret, you have the issue of the driver trying to figure his rear from a potentially spinning turret. One thing about a manned turret is that the crew know the placement of the turret with respect to the rest of the vehicle, because of the inertia of the direction of travel and traverse. I could see barrel strikes being a real problem for an inexperienced crew. It will be fascinating to see how this tank functions IRL. I'm sure that there are ways to work around the vision issues inherent in this tank design and I'm very intrigued to see what solutions they come up with.
Administered by a neutral country like Switzerland else we'd get a video from the Russian Ministry of Defense/Propaganda with all the bad bits edited out.
This is probably the most electronic-dependent tank currently. In Ukraine, soldiers reported that a good old sight was preferable. Of course when it works, it's a beast. But if it's countered, or disabled, it becomes a sitting duck
Sort of unrelated. One question I’ve had for a while, how likely is it for pretty much every optic/periscope to be damaged in the event of an impact? Whenever I’ve shot guns at metal they produce a ton of spalling, and I assume when a tank is hit by pretty much any projectile anything on that side of the tank will be hit with spalling. Cracked lens covers would be quite common. It seems amazing that tanks could be in battle for very long given that any small impact could crack the optics, and a shell impact would create A LOT of spalling.
I have to say, when I first encountered your channel, I suspected it would be entirely biased in favour of Russian equipment. The Russian accent, and the "Red" in "RedEffect" made me nervous. (So basically, I thought you would be an Alpha Defense but for Russia instead of India.) But now having seen many of your videos, I have to say, I haven't seen a single hint of bias. You seem to be equally critical of all countries' vehicles. I'm glad to say that my first impressions were entirely wrong!
@@teatotal8822 Mighty racist of me to assume he was Russian, wasn't it? My bad. Unfortunately, I haven't had much chance to interact with many people from the Eastern European/Western Asian part of the world. I hope to learn more when I get the chance.
He's pretty critical about most tanks. I don't think he is particularly biased though but I don't really agree with a lot of his conclusions. Not that I think I'm right and he's wrong, just differing perspectives.
When you mentioned the only primary sight for the main gun, all I could think of, as a former tanker, was the location of that sight, being flanked by those vertical plains, would surely create a shot trap for any projectiles; anything like a 50 cal round would piece those les-than-an-inch thick armored doors and destroy the sight behind it. Just my personal observation for what it's worth. Stay safe, all, wherever you are.
Despite the "problems" that you mention, I suspect that the T-14 will mature quite successfully as the years go by. There are a lot of design choices that are innovative and create a unique platform to conduct combat operations (at least for now). This general principle is true of most new weapons systems, especially those that incorporate significant electronics and emerging technologies. I do agree that the biggest hurdle the T-14 must overcome is the ability to be delivered in sufficient numbers to achieve operational effectiveness across the Russian order of battle. It's not unlike the harsh lessons the Wermacht learned with the Tiger I at Kursk.
@@gansior4744 Since I made that comment, the platform continues to undergo development. It's possible they may even deploy a unit to Ukraine for additional combat experience that can be advertised to sell a variant to the foreign arms market. What specifically do you believe hasn't "aged well" about a common phenomenon (protracted systems integration and initial maintenance phase) that occurs in many complex weapons platforms?
@@thomasromanelli2561 Yeah, where is it? It looks to me like there's not enough of them to fill up a single battalion tactical group and so they've decided to hold on to them and not use them.
@@moritamikamikara3879 Very possible, and if true, it may suggest that the state of Russia's domestic military industry is more compromised than many analysts have previously claimed. Russia continues to modernize its equipment, and that fact should not be dismissed. However, it's also obvious that equipment alone will not secure a desired victory. An excellent weapons platform does little if not supported by clear objectives, a robust C&C structure, adequate logistics and highly trained personnel who can exploit the platform's advantages.
Armata has all around radar, so it will track Javelin. The problem with Armata is size and price. It a big tank which makes for a big target. It's also expensive which means you can't field a lot of them.
@ToughKookie and thats why most active protection systems use radar " facepalm " first of all most threats a tank has will for sure not have radar detection devices. this is more evident that units that are suposed to hide like recon infantry even havr reconisance radars. second most targets that may have such device are likely to be detected faster by the tank then by the target third the tank gathers with its radar a lot of information that will be sent to alied units ( wich is one of its functions being able to be used as a command / recon tank ) . and the if shit really hits the fan ( no anti air support , no interceptor support basicly danger evrywhere ) the radar can be of course turned off for masking ( the aps works then less efficient it is using the cameras , wich could still probably detect the launch ). but like i said having a radar isnt that great danger as you think . in air combat of course its a tottally different scenario. i mean ... the T14 with radar turned on has basicly extremem situational awarness and probably delivers more recon info that most other battlefield deivces could . i am talking 360 degree coverage up to 100 km and it tracks up to 40 ground targets and 25 air targets. of course no one would turn their radar on with an enemie awacs operating . but whrn to turn on or off radar the crew knows ( it also counts for americans who upgrate their abrams with trophy aps wich also uses radar and yes it can be detectet just as easily by awacs )
It's a great tank but with a problem Russia has encountered before: cost. Russia can't afford enough, roughly 100 units to current year and then finished. T-90 also ran into cost issues, limiting Russia's ability to purchase large numbers.
that huge gunner sight port seems like a huge weakspot. seems like infantry can spray it and easily leave the gunner blind. but than again you'd have to be infront of the tank.....
I have a question. Is touchscreen display really effective on military ground vehicle? For me, it's pretty hard to accurately touch the right icon on relatively smooth but a little bumpy road in my car. I cannot imagine how it will be in moving tank on offroad terrain
The biggest one is "availability" the people usually think the tank with the best gun and best armor is the best, actually the best tank is the optimum solution for its job.
@@bigchungus6320 Those mock ups and prototypes you see in parades or the manufacture's sales literature are made of plastic, wood, cardboard and spray foam with a cheap paint job and a few decals thrown on.
I'm not convinced about the no-armor turret. Several modern and cold war era tanks with composite has resisted hits on the turret and remained operational. Additionally, the lack of armor is a significant problem as tanks aren't just expected to face off against AP rounds but also explosive which care much less about the size of your turret. The explosive shockwave and or fragmentation from artillery barrages can damage the gun system. While it has shrapnel protection, HE projectiles from ground vehicles can also wreck the gun system, something a armored turret doesn't have to worry about. The lack of backup sight makes this all the more major of a problem. The lack of access to the gun system to address battle damages also makes the vulnerability more problematic. I'm also not entirely convinced about the commander position. Having 360 degree vision is important to a tank commander even if looking behind you is less common, it does happen more often then it is implied in this video. My main gripes is that the crew is forced to rely on cameras which is much easier to disable than traditional vision blocks and periscopes. I do think the T-14 Armata is one of the best tanks out there but I think it focuses TOO much on crew safety. Human lives are definitely most important, but a tank still needs to be able to survive contact from enemy fire. Concentrating protection only around the crew means the tank won't survive contact if the APS fails to intercept. Its just too reliant on technology at this point. I also feel that the Russians are only ordering 100 additional tanks because they themselves are likely unsure if such a radical change is viable. The US have tried it and abandoned it but most of the testing are still classified. There of course is a lot of good things about the T-14 Armata though, but I'm not convinced.
It’s ironic how the one country that was known for just pure production numbers and creating a wall made with tanks (credit, these tanks were designed to last 3-4 weeks) is also the one country critically struggling with trying to produce enough tanks…
Russia is now sending all their new T14 Armata tanks back to their factories to be modified. They are going to incorporate some design changes that reflect lessons learned in the Special Military Operation. The tanks gear box needs replacing so that they have one super low forward gear and five reverse gears. The tanks bustle also needs to be enlarged in order to be able to carry a typical sized washing machine
Armata is a platform that can be upgraded for many years in the future. The old tanks have exhausted the modernization resource, there is no reserve for the future. But today there are enough old tanks, you can take your time with new ones.
Please dont say this on a worldwide platform as yt, or else some Rajeesh will be offended to the extend of every single tech support scammer terrorizing you and your female family members for bobs and veganas. Dont you know that the only reason aliens didint contact us yet is because of fear of India being such a superpower by 2025 that they will make alien technology look like some steam powered obsolete shit?
IS there any word on what those sight covers can resist? The sight opening looks like a relatively easy target for a sniper, and a bullet through the optics could be a quick mission kill.
What are statistics of having to use the backup sight? If it is very rare. And the performance when using backup sight is impaired. Maybe they concluded that if main sight is compromised, it is retreat time for that tank? There will be some comprimises, some sort of cost to the protection / performance of installing backup sight, so, it could be just an optimization.
One thing also to note from this video is, no the us also doesn't have billions to just sink in everything in the militairy. Hence they have big boneyard to either keep some vehicles flying or sold off, and the abrams often get rebuild instead of simply replaced.. also the b52 is planned to keep flying until it's over 100 if not longer.. it is somewhat rare for the us to outright replace older vehicles if they can be upgraded..
I wonder without backup sights would this tank be uniquely vulnerable to mission kill if an autocannon such 20 to 40mm anti air cannon fired at the turret. Difficult to hit or not. pumping thousands of rounds at the turret should result in some hits
I've looked through a lot of the threads here and only one person seems to have commented on one of the most obvious T14 problems: no real world battle experience. If there are genuine flaws or weaknesses present, the battlefield will expose them, because it is no respecter of reputation or cachet. Having said that, with there being so few T14s around, and it being such an expensive big ticket item, Tsar Putin would think twice before putting them at risk, because losing a few would be 1) expensive and 2) detrimental to his image. They may forever be condemned to Red Square parades and exciting videos. It is a very nice package of cutting-edge technology, though - them ingenious Russians!
I highly doubt they would not have a way to deal with misfires during battle. If the crew isn't in the turret to clear it and the autoloading system can't deal with it either, the gun would essentially be disabled. A tank with no gun is an armored paperweight. It wouldn't make sense to let that happen.
I live in the Russian Federation and know a little about tanks. Our country in the period from 1990-2010 has developed a tank that exceeds the characteristics of the T-14 "armata". this tank is called object 195, it had a 1500 horsepower engine, a capsule for the crew as on armata, a 152 mm 2А83 gun that could use the "Krasnopol" ATGM with a range of 20 kilometers and an additional 30 mm 2A42 autocannon. this tank passed all tests and was ready for mass production in 2010, but the Russian defense Ministry stopped funding this project, led by defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov (scum). Anatoly Serdyukov was a completely incompetent person and did not see any prospects for this tank. the new defense Minister-Sergei Shoigu is a more competent person, he allocated money for the development of the Т-14 "armata" tank, which is a cheaper version of the object 195. as of April 2020, only one Panzer division has the t-14. this is the "Taman" division . but the "Taman" division is not a combat division, they are equipped with the most modern equipment for parades on Мay 9, the main tank that the army really has now is the T-72B3, not even the T90.
Russia has very good designs, the problem is all there good ideas dont get past the drawing board because they're usually too expensive to be practical.
I think the T-72B3 is a happy compromise did very well in the Donbass against older ukrainian tanks thanks to the French thermal sights- don’t know how the tank would fare against javelin antitank missiles or the Abrams tank but still decent enough deterrence to be in “ the game”. But the cycle of countermeasures and upgraded equipment can only go so far before a new tank comes to meet the ever increasing threat environment
@@giancarloga8850 Care to provide evidence for your claims? Because older, weaker and cheaper T-90A(s) were able to survive multiple javelin hits without getting destroyed in Syria. Your biased attempt at discrediting Russian tanks unfortunately isn’t grounded in reality.
@@giancarloga8850 Indeed but I request that you send me at least one video of a T-90M or T-90MS getting destroyed, preferably by a javelin. Russia has like 5 generations of tanks in their forces, even more in their reserves. I have seen plenty of videos which show Russian tanks destroyed or abandoned. But since you specifically mentioned a T-90M and javelins and now are claiming there are videos to back you up, I must kindly ask you to link them here, otherwise your claim is a biased claim with no critical thought behind it, just contempt.
Production is complex making serial production slow, compounded with the fact that without foreign sales Russia cannot afford to implement it in numbers.
Like the video. Nit picking a bit but - as a former tank commander - I guarantee you that you do need to look behind you! You need to look for supporting vehicles and infantry, look how to manoeuvre in tight spaces, jockey out of a fire position, look for alternate fire positions, look where arty is landing etc etc And if you think you can do that via a screen - try driving your car by only looking through the screen of your phone!
There are technologies which reduce effects of EMP on electronic equipment. It is interesting, that tube electronic devices (like tube stabilisation controler on PT-91 for example) are more resistant against EMP than other electronics.
VoidplayLP I don’t think you understand it was a NUKE aka nuclear weapon and having multiple nuclear weapon in your tanks ammo racks I don’t think that’s a great idea
@@jameson1239 i mean, not the best of ideas No, but definitely possible. Besides, if you only have like 5 of them it wont really be an issue anyway...its not like you can trigger a nuke in a normal cook-off.
Remember the tank is currently just a proto type. Of course it has a lot of problems like non proper protection system activity that caused 3 tanks getting destroyed by a TOW tank missile(Which is powerful enough to even kill an Abrams)
I love how you mention that a TOW missile can kill an Abrams like it is the most amazing thing in the world. There are other tanks that have protection that is far superior to that of the Abrams.
The only good tank that Red Effect Approves: anything with a L55 gun. Even if its mounted on a shopping trolley 😂😂 And i hope the Chinese keeps driving their tanks with Smartphone navigation.🤣🤣
I mean battle management isnt nearly as ground breaking of a concept like it was in the 90's now that everyone has a smartphone I can see why no one is really implementing battle management in their older tanks because even a 2009 smartphone is far better than a 1990's LCD screen that is slow as dogshit.
@@nemisous83 sir, I believe Battle Management is the crux of Modern Warfare. Knowing who's where and what is happening and sharing that data leads to avoidance of duplication of efforts or even a misfire. And no Sir, no one would use a smartphone on an active war scene. For the first thing, not only is cellphone grade location lack accuracy, they can also be traced.
About the backup sight problem, they can just use commanders CITV as a backup for the gunner. After all, both gunners and commanders sights are the same. On the pro side of this, both sights are placed on different sides of the turret: the gunner is forward and left of the gun and the CITV is back and to the right and also both sights are at different heights. So only a shot coming diagonally from left to right can knock both of the sights out (also passing through and destroying the main gun breech, so there isn´t much sense in having a sight if you lack a gun to operate). This means that any frontal shot that "shaves" one side of the turret but doesn´t render the main gun inoperable won´t leave the crew without a sight to operate the gun. Another advantage is that since CITV is as capable as the gunners main, when switching from one to the other there are no visual capabilities lost. But on the other hand, the hunter-killer capability is diminished. The same could happen viceversa: if CITV get taken out, the commander can just take control of the main gun from the gunners sight. Also the gunner can use CITV to keep situational control while the commander is busy with navigational tasks from example. Thats one the advantage of having a fully digital tank (both of their sights are digitally connected to the FCS), gunner and commander can switch or reassign tasks between each other on the fly; both of them have mirrored controls and presumably the main gun operated form CITV should have the same accuracy as when operated by the gunner. For all around vision i can already imagine solutions using systems like Iron Sight (after all they already have 360 vision with cameras) or even commercial CR/AR headsets plugged into the system. For the lack of APS i guess that if needed, additional Arena-M casetess could be added lets say in the bustle. Arena-M features casettes that are launched vertically, then while mid air they use small impulse engines to rotate so that the explosive side is facing upwards. This system is already on trials with at least one T-72B and is a game changer against javelins as it leaves to blind spots in the upper hemisphere of the tank (unlike most western system with feature mechanically rotatable platforms which have a limit is to their maximum vertical angle of interception). The "missile jammer" may refer to two separate systems. Firstly teh smoke launchers may include other types of countermeasures, such as thermal decoys (like the Galix system on the Leclerc). Secondly it may also refer to SPMZ-2E which distorts the electro magnetic footprint of the tank. This is very effective against anti tank mines with magnetic sensors, but may also cause premature detonation of missiles like TOW-2B, or RBS 52 Bill, both of which feature over fly top attack and they are triggered when they sense the magnetic signature of the tank under them. As for the issue for misfires i guess that the autoloader should deal with them. But the thing is that in the patent for 2A82, it is mentioned that its ejecting mechanism is different from other guns. Perhaps there is something going on there. The BIG problem i see with the tank (and i was surprised that you didn´t point it out) is that so far we have no confirmation of it featuring a coaxial MG.
On commander view issue : if the Russians view the T-14 as a sort of “elite spearhead tank”, the T-14 would be in a mixed battalion accompanied by other tanks like T-90M T-80BVM. Hence any shortages in the tank abilities can be (to some extent) covered by the rest of the battalion. It is just a guess but it seems likely!
What makes you think that? If anything they cancel production runs and equipment based on cost. Their ''stealth plane'' only has 11 built, their carrier project is postponed as are their Lider-class destroyers. Besides they themselves said they were going to procure 2300 T-14s and then lowered it to i believe 100. All these project involve expensive new equipment they decide to not buy, instead they upgrade older equipment.
@@wouter0388 You've completely missed the point. What he's saying is that if Russia were to find itself in a war tomorrow, and suddenly need a lot more T 14s, they can just throw more resources at the already existing production line and increase the output of tanks. If they shut down the production completely, they'd have to waste time getting the factory up and running again and finding all their experienced staff before they could build more T 14s.
@@cams3011 That is fine logic but seeing as russia is cancelling and postponing other projects and its economy is not doing very well its nothing but wishful thinking.
The Fact that the Media Outlet that first reported on it was fined by a Court doesn't necessarily mean what they wrote isn't true. Most Nations don't want any Problems like that to leak via Newspapers. And Russia at the Moment also isn't really known for Freedom of Press. That doesn't mean the Tank actually has Engine Problems, but a court order isn't necessary a reflection of the Truth.
I get your point, but from what I’ve said I’m guessing you’ve never been in a tank. The reverse gear is one of the most important gears in a tank, you will be looking over the back just as much as you would be facing forward. You move upto a fire position, fire, reverse out of it.
Yep, pretty much a problem when relying more on electronics. Electronics are easily the most delicate parts of a tank, especially if they're outside the hull. All the more reason why urban combat isn't ideal for tanks.
@@alanoh3069 Hence why it's critical for tanks to be provided infantry support. The Syrian government, for instance couldn't use a tank properly to save their soul. They got very good tanks (German Leopard 2's) and decided in their great wisdom to drive said tanks into urban areas without support. They then spend the next month complaining to Germany about how crummy their tanks are. If you've ever dealt with German customer service, you'll know how far this went.
Prehaps the lack of a backup sight is because they reason that if the turret is hit, knocking out the sights then the rest of the turret will most likely also be ruined in the process meaning that they are effectivly "mission killed" regardless?
Few years ago i read somewhere that T-14 had a ventilation/air conditioning problems and the crew didint get enough oxygen or something like that but really i dont remember where i read it or is it even true.
I know this is irrelevant but. The Mandalorian Assasins driod. Rotating Eyes "cameras" should have been an Option, heck even Google 360' car Maps have it.
They wont even biuld enough of them. Their economy is stagnating, ruble is in a weak spot. Yes they may have all these cool designs, blueprints and words about their “new” technologies and machines, but the truth is they cant compete with either americans or the chinese just based on the budget of each military
I think it's just based on training, their tanks are good actually one of the best but their training is just as good as any other any other third world country.
I'm glad that you pointed out a few of the major problems with the T-14 Armata tank. Some will be angry because they bought into Russian propaganda. Poor visibility and lack of battlefield awareness will get a tanker killed quickly.
Luka Opačak. It’s not a problem for the developers, since war thunder is a very authentic game. It authentically represents developer’s personal whims and bias on how tanks should be.
The reason why T 14 wasn't mass produced yet because it has a lot of opportunities for upgrade. That's all. I'm sure they will add some Backup panoramic sights and solve other problems on this tank.
- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Thoughts on alpha defense's new channel called "Blue Effect"? It's made just to shit on your vids and channel.
@@ifureadthis_urgay red already know that channel isnt worth the time
when alpha defense literally admitted he made "blue effect" in the comments section and claimed other people made it in the video
Pls make pt 91 twardy...
I want to know its problem
The problem with these tank is, It has crew protection as a priority. Stalin would be ashamed of it.
dying for the motherland is an honor
@@persistentapparartionkitty5830 gulag for you our friend
World War II era Soviet tanks actually have good armor
Face palm, Soviet style.
@@229masterchief And the T55?T 64!
Yeah sure it might be good but it simply can't compare to the Bob semple
And red won't ever make a "everything wrong with bob semple" because it's perfect chad tank design.
That joke is still a bit annoying in these tanks comparing
hahahhahahahahha funny jokr hahahahhaha hahhaha
Apple222 Sickly same energy as a rickroll, bit less annoying though in my opinion
New Zealand baby😂😂 yeahhhhh❤️
Just like a car no Tank is perfect
The problem was how to use every tank properly. If you know how to use, even the vintage T55 or chinese tanks could also do pose some potent deterrence against enemy
Just like everything no tank is perfect
@@NeoPsychosis-zg2ki yeah that's what I'm saying... Saudi Arabia got best equipment from America... But still their Army is shit...
Unless it a bob sample tank
@@sanurawat1651 Even you give arabs the best tanks they would still screwed up, keep in mind that most arabs had little to no experience of tank warfare or strategy. Just look at iraq, saudi arabia, iran, syria, to name a few. Most of their tank regiments have suffered severe losses against militias.
Could you please do a video where you describe what you believe a world class tank should be like. It’s doesn’t have to be a existing one but maybe get different parts and put them together
yes would love to hear his Opinion about that :D
One with an energy shield
DeepBlue hahaha
German optics, Gun (130mm), FCS and engine.
Russian ERA, autoloader and APS
American DU Composite armor, multi purpose HE and DU KE round
South Korean KE top attack round
Crewless turret, blow out ammo panels, reduced thermal and radar signature, hybrid drive and a 20mm coaxial cannon.
@@antimatter4733 at this rate that tank is gonna cost more than an F-22.
Why i get this feeling that red hates every tank in existence,(maybe he served in anti tank unit)
rishabh sharma not hate, but be critical. Being critical of a tank means you love it more if anything
@@richardzheng231 he's just messed up the best tank in existence! And he did that with every tank
He loves this tank.
ruclips.net/video/akTqjYw8jbY/видео.html
@iqbal sahibil weirdo ! Get help
He prob served as tank recovery
Bet he loves mud pits
The T-14 is *thee* GREATEST tank ever designed! It cannot be destroyed by any other tank, not even at point-blank-range. It is armed with a 16-inch naval gun that is accurate to 24 miles. It can drive along the ocean floor at close to 50 knots. It can fly! It can shoot down fighter jets, satellites, you name it! And it is equipped with the PIONEER FH-X830BHS Double Din Stereo system. It even has an ice cream maker! ... *(JUST DON'T TAKE IT TO A PARADE.)*
Just like the 553 destroyed abrooms...
Problem with t14? It is first Russian tank to get rid of famous Emergency Turret Ejection system xaxaxa
In all seriousness, t14 is actually pretty cool tank.
older soviet MBT: crewmen you have served the motherland well, off to space you go!
A Nice Guy that’s a huge promotion!
From fighting for the motherland on the ground to conquering space for the motherland!
@@utaMAN12345 Going to hunt capitalist satellite for the Motherland xaxaxa)))))
It acualy is not. Autoloader in T-14 still takes rounds from the magazine on the floor under the turret (if loaded), so any hit in it and T-14 turret goes as high as its predecessors :P
@@Weisior yeah but at least on t14 crew sits in armored capsule seperate from ammo carosel so that they will be protected if the turret pops.
What really boggles me about the T14 is how the Russians have somehow made a tank with a larger footprint after using design features that’s supposed to make the tank smaller.
If all the crew had fully reclined seats the hull could be lowered.
That's because the hull is just a repurposed object 195 hull from the 90's which was absolutely massive.
The reason for that is that modern FCS and Anti Tank munitions can easily hit tanks no matter the size, according to Zaloga M1A1 tanks knocked out several T-72 tanks from 4km back in 1991 Gulf War, that was 30 years ago, modern FCS have even further advanced, size no longer matters. Another reason why is because they needed space for long APFSDS projectiles, new Vacuum is reported to be ~1m long, so they needed space to fit them inside, as well as provide enough space and comfort for the entire crew to be stationed in the hull. Those are some of the reasons I could think of at the top of my head, there could be more.
Because that "smaller, thus harder to hit" it's true but not a big difference in combat. Situational awareness, ergonomics and those soft characteristics are the ones you need to bet on.
@@RedEffectChannel but wait in 8:10 you say that the turret will be "extreamly hard to hit" so the size wold matter.... No?
Fun Fact: I haven't seen RedEffect play War Thunder
@Jeff Clark then play realistic mode then lol
@@medina5129 I think he means the modern tank engagements are not realistic in WarThunder modern tanks always fight in a 1 km radius sometimes you get 2 km sniped but that's spawn to spawn
@@hon3ybear538, because for ULTRA REALISTIC combat sim, you go for IL-2 tank battles mode, and GL finding 4-6, sometimes 7 players to man these tanks (GL getting 7 players to coordinate inside a Tortoise)...
War thunder SB is entry level Simulator and WT as a whole is a basic simulator game tbh....
The game wouldn't be running had they gone full DCS style on multi crew vehicles
@@andrehashimoto8056 hey bud I didn't complain about the game I play 24/7 I'm just telling medina what Jeff means
@Jeff Clark Don't forget Steel armor blaze of war
Fun fact: there were more F35's produced in 2019 than T14's
Hahahaha very fun fact
More debt too
T14 is superior
@@gothamgoon4237 The price to produce the plane (and maintain it) is not the problem.
The problem is the research and development cost......
Yeah, better tend the COVID first before those puny fighters. The COVID has infected a lot of AC crews
Couple of small details:
On top attack munition: I does not really matter as much if the tank is destroyed on a battlefield. The more important aspect is if the tank is able to keep fighting. Top attack munition taking out the gun would mean a 'mission kill' (Tank is not able to help the outcome of the current fight any further) and this would be enough for the enemy combatant. On a strategic view it is of course more valuable to completely destroy a tank, but it is not the main pirority in a battle (Unless, ofcourse, you have the chance to de so).
On the commanders visiblity: The importance of all round visability very much depends on who uses the tanks. From what I have heard American tankers in Iraq usually fought with hatches open, even in enviroments with relatively high treat levels. Russian tankers on the other hand are trained to fight mostly with closed hatches. This means the location of the hatches are much less a problem for the Russians then it would be if it was an american tank. Having said that, being able to look out over the tank means the commander has a better understanding of the area around him (Full 360 with added depth perception that you don't get with a computerscreen) has some significant advantages on the commanders tactical level. Another small problem I have is that a human eye is currently still beter then a pixelated screen. I however have to add that I do not know the quality of the screens in T-14, so this might not even be a problem.
After this I want to repeat what you already said in the video: I am only looking for problems with the tanks, not calling it a bad tank. T-14 does something revolutionairy for tank design, so it is to be expected there are things that might need to be worked on or are part of the compromise for a uncrewed turret. The top attack munition story I posted above here goes for all tanks, and is a lot worse for tanks that have crews in the turret (Crewmembers are a lot harder to replace then gunbarrel or breaches, especially to their family). T-14 is an amazing vehicle, and one of the only of the next generation tanks. I really hope to be able to see one someday, hopefully not as an adversery :).
Also I want to say that I really enjoy your videos, I always enjoy learning new things about tanks and seeing the flaws as well as merits of alle tanks. Would love to know what you think about the points I just made :).
American tankers in Iraq fought with hatches open because their M1A1 tanks had no CITV so commander really had no sight to look around. And during combat today everyone uses CITV to look around because it is far easier to spot targets because pretty much everyone uses camo. Today there is no reason to fight with the hatch open because you risk getting wounded (like that american tanker who got blinded by RPG) or even getting killed, not to mention that you have way less chances of spotting the target. The only reason why you would open the hatch and look around is when you are not in combat so it makes no difference.
@@azrael9016 I admit that spotting will be primarily done with the CITV in modern tanks (Even if only for the thermal capabilities). The biggest downside then would be medium threat enviroments. Here The commander could normally turn out to get a good lay of the land without exposing himself to much (With the benifits of full 360 3d vision in the highest possible resolution). Now the commander would have to completely leave the tank to look around like this (Which wil mean he probably won't bother and as such will have a lesser view of the battlefield).
Having said that, I think the crewless turret is worth more than this downside, but that does not mean it still exists.
But thanks for your reaction! I did not remember the M1A1 did not have CITV (Even though I watched the video from RedEffect about it), so thank you for correcting me!
In the future, they should develop something like the IronVision Helmet
ruclips.net/video/XOi__MmtN1M/видео.html
MrJoe99998 one problem I would just like to add on with t 14 unmanned turret is the crew have no way to enter it from inside the tank they would have to leave the tank and enter through a maintenance hatch where other tanks most compartments are accessible inside the tank and it is harder to replace a person than a tank which is why a missing loader can be a down side for example if the gunner becomes unconscious the loader can resume his position where in t 14 that is not the case
@@MrJoe99998 yeah np
The biggest problem of the Armata is that it is more expensive than pulling some old T-55 from storage.
This comment aged well. T-62s with no ERA go BOOM!
This comment aged well. T-54s and 55s have been spotted being moved from RUssia's far east storage facility.
While intended as a joke, it is unironically true. Tanks, in a modern environment are consumable resources, the more expensive they are, the less likely it is to keep the foodchain going. It doesn't matter if it costs 1 Million or 100 Million, all tanks burn the same. Also the reason why no Leopard or Challenger is a game changer when there are hand full of them.
But the real question is: how does it perform when facing a Ukrainian tractor?
It doesn't perform anything. T-14 is parade only Tank.
Just like the 553 destroyed abrooms...
We will never see this in Ukraine... unless they get really desperate...
@@user-fd4il6pi9i hahahahahh.
@@user-fd4il6pi9i um america never lost 533 abrams
So how many videos were sponsored by War thunder and there still isn't a video of you playing it?
Many athletes are sponsored by McDonald's but you don't see them flipping burgers.
@@uporabn1k But they probably do eat McDonald's
@@matevz532 Not if they wan't to stay sponsored Athletes XD
lol
@@uporabn1k A better comparison would be them actually eating the burgers. I bet everything they dont eat shit from mcdonalds.
One point i believe you might be wrong is that both T-14 and T-15 seem to have AESA radars . You can see 4 radar antenas on the 4 corners of T-14 turret ( T-15 has them aswell ) and considering their position and angle it's safe to say that those cover the entire top hemisphere , some say those are the same used on Su-57 sides to cut cost but yeah regardless that would give T-14 the possibility to know when a Javeline and such is being launched at it . You can also see this being advertised in UVZ commercials .
@:::::::::::::: Wow such an argumented response ..... now return under your rock troll !
I had read that the prototypes were mocked up using an automotive collision detection radar, which explains the 26 GHz operating frequency.
@:::::::::::::: prove it
but does it have more than -4 deppresion?
Yes lol
@@MR-JUSTINN then it doesnt have any problems
@@Snicshavo it’s Russian 💀
@@MR-JUSTINN That's racist bro.
@@definitelyfrank9341 mb
Russian tanks don't need back up sights.. They need back up turrets.
The problem with this tank - it hardly exists
I feel like the T-14 will be like the Tiger. Mechanical breakdowns and fuel shortages will plague them and when they do actually get to the front they will be too scarce to make a difference, no matter how technologically superior they might be.
Don't forget the rampant corruption in Russia. Everything designed and built by the lowest bidder who is also trying to scam the govt for money.
but can it defend itself from a ukranian farmer
Can you do a video on the BMPT Terminator?
Hey, love your vids. Can you do a video on modern infantry fighting vehicles like the german Puma? I think it would also be interesting to see!
Etzela rainer du warscht neben Kampfsportler und freier schichtarbeiter auch panzerfahrer😂 mehr als sein Mondeo hat er nicht gefahren
@@user-tt5ol5vr9j ich bin hier etzedla undercover du HibHob Kaggnazi
@@user-tt5ol5vr9j ich konnde schon mit 5 von mei Vatar sei Leopard 2a7 fahrne, ich war etzela sehr dalentiert sogar tadsächlich
Was haben Haider hier zu suchne alder?Des is bolidisch nichd goreggt ausgedrüggt.
@@Alex-zg7vq Vor 25 Jahren Leo2A7?
If I remember correctly the reason there aren't many T-14's is because the Russians have more or less given up on them in favor of upgrading their T-90's since they can upgrade 3 or 4 of them for the cost of a single T-14. It is a huge improvement over its predecessors in terms of crew survivability, but it terms of combat performance it's a bit hard to say that one of them is worth 3 T-90's that can do about as well.
5:28 now in 2023 2 years later there’s what 8-9 t-14 tanks far from your prediction of 50+ Tanks funny in a way
Yeah he's recently got upset about that and so made an unnecessary video criticising another youtubers t14 video in which they say it's absolutely terrible
You drunk?
@@yorkshire_tea6875Um, if you didn't watch his video just say that. Don't make up things he didn't say. He was wrong about the 50+ T-14s, but that has nothing to do with his critique.
@@militaristaustrian No, he's not Russian
From what I understand, the turret is very lightly armored and doesn't take much to disable. It's a good design concept in principle, but it seems like they just didn't follow through on the design potential in order to save weight. It's a design dilemma faced by warship designers back in the age of dreadnought battleships, so there is actually a pretty close precedent for this in military technology. Naval designers struggled for decades trying to find the right blend between speed, firepower, and protection. Warships of similar design concept to the T-14 were produced in the 1930's by such navies as the German Kriegsmarine. The Deutschland class Panzerschiff was a heavy cruiser sized warship with extremely heavy armament for its size, decent speed, but poor armor protection for ships systems. The ammunition magazines were well protected to prevent a catastrophic magazine detonation but everything else was exposed. The KMS Graf Spee met its end when these shortcomings were were highlighted in 1939. Graf Spee had a significant advantage over the much lighter British cruisers she was engaged by in terms of firepower and should have been able to overpower them easily at range. What actually ended up happening however, is that they managed to score many hits against Graf Spee, which due to her completely inadequate protection, managed to inflict enough damage that she could not escape without significant repairs.
Problem is that apparently the Russians don’t even have enough to send any into battle
Hiya. As an experienced tankie, there is one thing that really worries me about this vehicle and that is what happens when the cameras get covered with mud and snow? In a normal tank, you'd just drop the vision block, replace it with a spare and clean it as you'd progress. For the most part this is an issue only for the driver, because the mud thrown up by the tracks tends to stay at hull level, unless you lose one of your front track shrouds.
Remember that each track is really just a great big conveyor belt that picks up what you are driving on and trundles it towards the front of the vehicle. In really muddy conditions, as a tank driver, I could be replacing a vision block every 30 seconds, or so. I'm an Australian, so I don't know about operating in snow, but in a dusty environment, it isn't long before literally everything is caked with the really fine dust that gets literally everywhere, including the gun sights, which need to be cleaned regularly. Obviously things get worse if you have the misfortune to be working in close proximity to other vehicles, which are also throwing dust.
As far as tank crew commanders not needing to look back, that often, that isn't correct. Every time you come out of a turret down, or similar position, you are reversing back away from the crest, because going straight over a hill is asking for trouble. Good drivers will always find the low ground and stick in that. Even in the middle of seemingly flat terrain a good driver will often find the one bit of low ground that puts the tank at hull down to the surrounding plain.
But when reversing they rely on the crew commanders to be able to provide directions, lest they back into a tree, rock, or other such obstacle. In the T-14, the driver will most likely have direct access to rear facing cameras, but if these are placed in the hull, you magnify problems with mud and dirt, as the arse end of a tank is filthy. If placed in the turret, you have the issue of the driver trying to figure his rear from a potentially spinning turret. One thing about a manned turret is that the crew know the placement of the turret with respect to the rest of the vehicle, because of the inertia of the direction of travel and traverse. I could see barrel strikes being a real problem for an inexperienced crew.
It will be fascinating to see how this tank functions IRL. I'm sure that there are ways to work around the vision issues inherent in this tank design and I'm very intrigued to see what solutions they come up with.
*shoots sight with pistol*
*Tank basically unable to fire accurately anymore*
That's, not quite how that works. I know you commented this a year ago but I digress.
@@iamfrancis1671 i know it was a joke im sure tanks have multiple sights and shit. Also nice tarkov pfp
@@Myemnhk 120 hours on the game and I'm still horrible.
the sales brochure never said anything about Javelin NLaw Crossblade … no more multimillion dollar tanks; sitting deathtraps for three.
I want to see the T-14 run through the Tank Biathlon course.
Administered by a neutral country like Switzerland else we'd get a video from the Russian Ministry of Defense/Propaganda with all the bad bits edited out.
This is probably the most electronic-dependent tank currently. In Ukraine, soldiers reported that a good old sight was preferable. Of course when it works, it's a beast. But if it's countered, or disabled, it becomes a sitting duck
Sort of unrelated. One question I’ve had for a while, how likely is it for pretty much every optic/periscope to be damaged in the event of an impact? Whenever I’ve shot guns at metal they produce a ton of spalling, and I assume when a tank is hit by pretty much any projectile anything on that side of the tank will be hit with spalling. Cracked lens covers would be quite common. It seems amazing that tanks could be in battle for very long given that any small impact could crack the optics, and a shell impact would create A LOT of spalling.
Sights are always in a hole with no cover
I have to say, when I first encountered your channel, I suspected it would be entirely biased in favour of Russian equipment. The Russian accent, and the "Red" in "RedEffect" made me nervous. (So basically, I thought you would be an Alpha Defense but for Russia instead of India.)
But now having seen many of your videos, I have to say, I haven't seen a single hint of bias. You seem to be equally critical of all countries' vehicles. I'm glad to say that my first impressions were entirely wrong!
fyi he's Serbian
@@teatotal8822 Mighty racist of me to assume he was Russian, wasn't it? My bad. Unfortunately, I haven't had much chance to interact with many people from the Eastern European/Western Asian part of the world. I hope to learn more when I get the chance.
@@fi4re nah not racist. just honest mistake. i thought he was russian too until i read in the comments of a video of his that he was Serbian.
He's pretty critical about most tanks. I don't think he is particularly biased though but I don't really agree with a lot of his conclusions. Not that I think I'm right and he's wrong, just differing perspectives.
Yeah but he speaks Russian
When you mentioned the only primary sight for the main gun, all I could think of, as a former tanker, was the location of that sight, being flanked by those vertical plains, would surely create a shot trap for any projectiles; anything like a 50 cal round would piece those les-than-an-inch thick armored doors and destroy the sight behind it. Just my personal observation for what it's worth. Stay safe, all, wherever you are.
Well they would also block any projectile thats not coming from directly ahead
Despite the "problems" that you mention, I suspect that the T-14 will mature quite successfully as the years go by. There are a lot of design choices that are innovative and create a unique platform to conduct combat operations (at least for now). This general principle is true of most new weapons systems, especially those that incorporate significant electronics and emerging technologies.
I do agree that the biggest hurdle the T-14 must overcome is the ability to be delivered in sufficient numbers to achieve operational effectiveness across the Russian order of battle. It's not unlike the harsh lessons the Wermacht learned with the Tiger I at Kursk.
Oh boi, didn't aged well
@@gansior4744 Since I made that comment, the platform continues to undergo development. It's possible they may even deploy a unit to Ukraine for additional combat experience that can be advertised to sell a variant to the foreign arms market.
What specifically do you believe hasn't "aged well" about a common phenomenon (protracted systems integration and initial maintenance phase) that occurs in many complex weapons platforms?
@@thomasromanelli2561 It will likely be quite good, but hasn't been seen in Ukraine.
@@thomasromanelli2561 Yeah, where is it?
It looks to me like there's not enough of them to fill up a single battalion tactical group and so they've decided to hold on to them and not use them.
@@moritamikamikara3879 Very possible, and if true, it may suggest that the state of Russia's domestic military industry is more compromised than many analysts have previously claimed. Russia continues to modernize its equipment, and that fact should not be dismissed. However, it's also obvious that equipment alone will not secure a desired victory. An excellent weapons platform does little if not supported by clear objectives, a robust C&C structure, adequate logistics and highly trained personnel who can exploit the platform's advantages.
How can Putin be trusted when he lies all the time😉
Armata has all around radar, so it will track Javelin. The problem with Armata is size and price. It a big tank which makes for a big target. It's also expensive which means you can't field a lot of them.
the T14 probably knows when a javelin is launched with its radar pannels
Exactly .
@ToughKookie and thats why most active protection systems use radar " facepalm " first of all most threats a tank has will for sure not have radar detection devices. this is more evident that units that are suposed to hide like recon infantry even havr reconisance radars. second most targets that may have such device are likely to be detected faster by the tank then by the target third the tank gathers with its radar a lot of information that will be sent to alied units ( wich is one of its functions being able to be used as a command / recon tank ) . and the if shit really hits the fan ( no anti air support , no interceptor support basicly danger evrywhere ) the radar can be of course turned off for masking ( the aps works then less efficient it is using the cameras , wich could still probably detect the launch ). but like i said having a radar isnt that great danger as you think . in air combat of course its a tottally different scenario.
i mean ... the T14 with radar turned on has basicly extremem situational awarness and probably delivers more recon info that most other battlefield deivces could . i am talking 360 degree coverage up to 100 km and it tracks up to 40 ground targets and 25 air targets.
of course no one would turn their radar on with an enemie awacs operating . but whrn to turn on or off radar the crew knows ( it also counts for americans who upgrate their abrams with trophy aps wich also uses radar and yes it can be detectet just as easily by awacs )
It's a great tank but with a problem Russia has encountered before: cost. Russia can't afford enough, roughly 100 units to current year and then finished. T-90 also ran into cost issues, limiting Russia's ability to purchase large numbers.
that huge gunner sight port seems like a huge weakspot. seems like infantry can spray it and easily leave the gunner blind.
but than again you'd have to be infront of the tank.....
I have a question. Is touchscreen display really effective on military ground vehicle? For me, it's pretty hard to accurately touch the right icon on relatively smooth but a little bumpy road in my car. I cannot imagine how it will be in moving tank on offroad terrain
Well the commander doesnt need to use a Touchscreen and drive at the same time
The biggest one is "availability" the people usually think the tank with the best gun and best armor is the best, actually the best tank is the optimum solution for its job.
I think the main problem is that it doesn't in fact exist.
Are you blind?
@@bigchungus6320
Having a few prototypes for parades is not the same as having the vehicle operational in any meaningful sense.
@@drksideofthewal Yep.
@@bigchungus6320 Those mock ups and prototypes you see in parades or the manufacture's sales literature are made of plastic, wood, cardboard and spray foam with a cheap paint job and a few decals thrown on.
Well it was believed that it was going to back when this video is released, but oh well.
So a well aimed bucket of paint to the main gun sight stops the main gun?
Bucket of paint will just bounce off it, I think he means apfsds rounds by any tank.
I'm not convinced about the no-armor turret. Several modern and cold war era tanks with composite has resisted hits on the turret and remained operational. Additionally, the lack of armor is a significant problem as tanks aren't just expected to face off against AP rounds but also explosive which care much less about the size of your turret.
The explosive shockwave and or fragmentation from artillery barrages can damage the gun system. While it has shrapnel protection, HE projectiles from ground vehicles can also wreck the gun system, something a armored turret doesn't have to worry about. The lack of backup sight makes this all the more major of a problem. The lack of access to the gun system to address battle damages also makes the vulnerability more problematic.
I'm also not entirely convinced about the commander position. Having 360 degree vision is important to a tank commander even if looking behind you is less common, it does happen more often then it is implied in this video. My main gripes is that the crew is forced to rely on cameras which is much easier to disable than traditional vision blocks and periscopes.
I do think the T-14 Armata is one of the best tanks out there but I think it focuses TOO much on crew safety. Human lives are definitely most important, but a tank still needs to be able to survive contact from enemy fire. Concentrating protection only around the crew means the tank won't survive contact if the APS fails to intercept. Its just too reliant on technology at this point.
I also feel that the Russians are only ordering 100 additional tanks because they themselves are likely unsure if such a radical change is viable. The US have tried it and abandoned it but most of the testing are still classified. There of course is a lot of good things about the T-14 Armata though, but I'm not convinced.
So, the main gun can be defeated by a can of spray paint?
by a towel...
Miss fires in tank cannons happen more often than you think and seeing as how this cannon uses 2 part ammo, this is a much bigger problem.
Redeffect is the kind of guy who would find problems in the word "No problems"
It’s ironic how the one country that was known for just pure production numbers and creating a wall made with tanks (credit, these tanks were designed to last 3-4 weeks) is also the one country critically struggling with trying to produce enough tanks…
This the most advanced tank they made and cost twice as much as a T-90M
Russia is now sending all their new T14 Armata tanks back to their factories to be modified. They are going to incorporate some design changes that reflect lessons learned in the Special Military Operation.
The tanks gear box needs replacing so that they have one super low forward gear and five reverse gears. The tanks bustle also needs to be enlarged in order to be able to carry a typical sized washing machine
Last time I was this early Soviet tanks had a crew of 3 people....
Without autoloader.
Crew of 4 you meant ?
you mean the T 34 ?
@@louiseberdjane9122 he mean T-26, Bt-5/7
@@ilikepie2376 Exactly.
Armata is a platform that can be upgraded for many years in the future.
The old tanks have exhausted the modernization resource, there is no reserve for the future. But today there are enough old tanks, you can take your time with new ones.
No tank is perfect, Arjun is the proof, Its trash on tracks 🤣
train*
Please dont say this on a worldwide platform as yt, or else some Rajeesh will be offended to the extend of every single tech support scammer terrorizing you and your female family members for bobs and veganas. Dont you know that the only reason aliens didint contact us yet is because of fear of India being such a superpower by 2025 that they will make alien technology look like some steam powered obsolete shit?
India always shi t
@@slavarodu5062 lol, okay my mistake bro. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@johnhanser2313 Arjun is shit
Not India
Ok I'm getting into patriotic mode
IS there any word on what those sight covers can resist? The sight opening looks like a relatively easy target for a sniper, and a bullet through the optics could be a quick mission kill.
What are statistics of having to use the backup sight?
If it is very rare. And the performance when using backup sight is impaired. Maybe they concluded that if main sight is compromised, it is retreat time for that tank? There will be some comprimises, some sort of cost to the protection / performance of installing backup sight, so, it could be just an optimization.
Damn, every tank designer in the world must learn from RedEffect to make an efficient tank. As usual, good video!
Knowing the problem is only half the solution
@@badgermcbadger1968 yeah, something that armchair engineers and generals don't realise is that everything has compromises and downsides
14 minutes ago?zero dislikes? You really post good content
Unlike beta defense and blue effect
27 minutes later, and there's 6 dislikes... I wonder who they are...
@@re57k beta defense and his bots
@@mikkt7827 *Alpha shit defense
Look now
Honestly, a good sniper could take out the camera's since they are so visible
One thing also to note from this video is, no the us also doesn't have billions to just sink in everything in the militairy. Hence they have big boneyard to either keep some vehicles flying or sold off, and the abrams often get rebuild instead of simply replaced.. also the b52 is planned to keep flying until it's over 100 if not longer.. it is somewhat rare for the us to outright replace older vehicles if they can be upgraded..
@@stijnVDA1994yeah but the USA has 12x times Russia military budget and less corruption
@@mbtenjoyer9487they both have the same corruption levels (catastrophic)
I wonder without backup sights would this tank be uniquely vulnerable to mission kill if an autocannon such 20 to 40mm anti air cannon fired at the turret. Difficult to hit or not. pumping thousands of rounds at the turret should result in some hits
Though you would in all due likelyhood get shot back by the tank or another one of it's kind. Don't think they would be used on their own.
I've looked through a lot of the threads here and only one person seems to have commented on one of the most obvious T14 problems: no real world battle experience. If there are genuine flaws or weaknesses present, the battlefield will expose them, because it is no respecter of reputation or cachet. Having said that, with there being so few T14s around, and it being such an expensive big ticket item, Tsar Putin would think twice before putting them at risk, because losing a few would be 1) expensive and 2) detrimental to his image. They may forever be condemned to Red Square parades and exciting videos. It is a very nice package of cutting-edge technology, though - them ingenious Russians!
No one:
Literally no one:
The T-14 Armata tank: "Does this composite armor make my turret look fat?"
The tank looks like Forest Whitaker
Smallie Smalls w h a t
@@smalliesmalls9601 jajajajaja
a russian tank is only as fast as a Ukrainian farm tractor pulling it.
The T14’s problem is it is so good Russia won’t use them in combat
Does not T-14 radar must to detect "Javelin" for using aerozole heat protection?
I highly doubt they would not have a way to deal with misfires during battle. If the crew isn't in the turret to clear it and the autoloading system can't deal with it either, the gun would essentially be disabled. A tank with no gun is an armored paperweight. It wouldn't make sense to let that happen.
I live in the Russian Federation and know a little about tanks. Our country in the period from 1990-2010 has developed a tank that exceeds the characteristics of the T-14 "armata". this tank is called object 195, it had a 1500 horsepower engine, a capsule for the crew as on armata, a 152 mm 2А83 gun that could use the "Krasnopol" ATGM with a range of 20 kilometers and an additional 30 mm 2A42 autocannon. this tank passed all tests and was ready for mass production in 2010, but the Russian defense Ministry stopped funding this project, led by defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov (scum). Anatoly Serdyukov was a completely incompetent person and did not see any prospects for this tank. the new defense Minister-Sergei Shoigu is a more competent person, he allocated money for the development of the Т-14 "armata" tank, which is a cheaper version of the object 195. as of April 2020, only one Panzer division has the t-14. this is the "Taman" division
. but the "Taman" division is not a combat division, they are equipped with the most modern equipment for parades on Мay 9, the main tank that the army really has now is the T-72B3, not even the T90.
The Krasnopol isn't an ATGM, it's a laser guided artillery shell
@@erik8346 my mistake, this is a guided shell ofc
Too bad object 195 was abandoned
Russia has very good designs, the problem is all there good ideas dont get past the drawing board because they're usually too expensive to be practical.
I think the T-72B3 is a happy compromise did very well in the Donbass against older ukrainian tanks thanks to the French thermal sights- don’t know how the tank would fare against javelin antitank missiles or the Abrams tank but still decent enough deterrence to be in “ the game”. But the cycle of countermeasures and upgraded equipment can only go so far before a new tank comes to meet the ever increasing threat environment
red effect loves the t90M 😂
And the T 80U
@@wonkagaming8750 and white eagle 😉
@@obsidiandestroyer7015 yep
@Whats in THE name yes it is
Poor Object 640, that was a awsome looking Tank (always the best looking tank gets canceled, RiP Omsktransmasch )
It's amazing how much of an improvement T-14 and T-90M are from older Russian tanks.
it's amazing how easily a mere javelin rocket can destroy a t-90m, not to mention that the t-14 is not in service and (maybe) will be in 10 years
@@giancarloga8850 Care to provide evidence for your claims? Because older, weaker and cheaper T-90A(s) were able to survive multiple javelin hits without getting destroyed in Syria. Your biased attempt at discrediting Russian tanks unfortunately isn’t grounded in reality.
@@mystictomato9466 unfortunately is grounded in realty that every day new videos of destroyed russian tanks are added in the net
@@giancarloga8850 Indeed but I request that you send me at least one video of a T-90M or T-90MS getting destroyed, preferably by a javelin. Russia has like 5 generations of tanks in their forces, even more in their reserves. I have seen plenty of videos which show Russian tanks destroyed or abandoned. But since you specifically mentioned a T-90M and javelins and now are claiming there are videos to back you up, I must kindly ask you to link them here, otherwise your claim is a biased claim with no critical thought behind it, just contempt.
🇺🇦
Production is complex making serial production slow, compounded with the fact that without foreign sales Russia cannot afford to implement it in numbers.
Like the video. Nit picking a bit but - as a former tank commander - I guarantee you that you do need to look behind you!
You need to look for supporting vehicles and infantry, look how to manoeuvre in tight spaces, jockey out of a fire position, look for alternate fire positions, look where arty is landing etc etc
And if you think you can do that via a screen - try driving your car by only looking through the screen of your phone!
Escape hatch underneath...what if they hit a mine
"more than 1500 historically accurate vehicles" yeah no, if u only knew how bad the things really are
I wonder since technology is advancing and tanks are being more and more electronic if EMP rounds are going to be invented.
There are technologies which reduce effects of EMP on electronic equipment. It is interesting, that tube electronic devices (like tube stabilisation controler on PT-91 for example) are more resistant against EMP than other electronics.
The only real way to make an EMP is with a nuke and the US tried that in the 50s the smallest they could get it was about 203mm in diameter
@@jameson1239 so they could make a 200mm EMP Shell in the 50s? Yeah id say getting that to 120mm shouldnt be too hard today
VoidplayLP I don’t think you understand it was a NUKE aka nuclear weapon and having multiple nuclear weapon in your tanks ammo racks I don’t think that’s a great idea
@@jameson1239 i mean, not the best of ideas No, but definitely possible.
Besides, if you only have like 5 of them it wont really be an issue anyway...its not like you can trigger a nuke in a normal cook-off.
Whats with that gunner site, how can it NOT get damaged it's huge lol
Remember the tank is currently just a proto type. Of course it has a lot of problems like non proper protection system activity that caused 3 tanks getting destroyed by a TOW tank missile(Which is powerful enough to even kill an Abrams)
I love how you mention that a TOW missile can kill an Abrams like it is the most amazing thing in the world. There are other tanks that have protection that is far superior to that of the Abrams.
@Just Some Crappy Animations yes
Problems with Bob Semple?
none
0
It's too overpowered that's the only problem
It was not designed to test on humans. Only can be used against threat against humanity
The only good tank that Red Effect Approves: anything with a L55 gun. Even if its mounted on a shopping trolley 😂😂
And i hope the Chinese keeps driving their tanks with Smartphone navigation.🤣🤣
...what
@@radenprasetyo8234 check type 99 video by red effect.
He says that Chinese tank Crews use Smartphones for navigation
I mean battle management isnt nearly as ground breaking of a concept like it was in the 90's now that everyone has a smartphone I can see why no one is really implementing battle management in their older tanks because even a 2009 smartphone is far better than a 1990's LCD screen that is slow as dogshit.
@@nemisous83 sir, I believe Battle Management is the crux of Modern Warfare. Knowing who's where and what is happening and sharing that data leads to avoidance of duplication of efforts or even a misfire.
And no Sir, no one would use a smartphone on an active war scene. For the first thing, not only is cellphone grade location lack accuracy, they can also be traced.
Smart phone navigation isn’t much of a problem since they have their own gps system and BMS
I tap as fast as the Soviet advance
I tapped as fast as the German retreat to Berlin
@@zed9095 it was pretty slow tho
TheManWithoutAName 4 Indians just shat on the dislike button
So.... around 5 years too late?
@@SK-ik9mc why ?
About the backup sight problem, they can just use commanders CITV as a backup for the gunner. After all, both gunners and commanders sights are the same. On the pro side of this, both sights are placed on different sides of the turret: the gunner is forward and left of the gun and the CITV is back and to the right and also both sights are at different heights. So only a shot coming diagonally from left to right can knock both of the sights out (also passing through and destroying the main gun breech, so there isn´t much sense in having a sight if you lack a gun to operate). This means that any frontal shot that "shaves" one side of the turret but doesn´t render the main gun inoperable won´t leave the crew without a sight to operate the gun. Another advantage is that since CITV is as capable as the gunners main, when switching from one to the other there are no visual capabilities lost. But on the other hand, the hunter-killer capability is diminished. The same could happen viceversa: if CITV get taken out, the commander can just take control of the main gun from the gunners sight. Also the gunner can use CITV to keep situational control while the commander is busy with navigational tasks from example. Thats one the advantage of having a fully digital tank (both of their sights are digitally connected to the FCS), gunner and commander can switch or reassign tasks between each other on the fly; both of them have mirrored controls and presumably the main gun operated form CITV should have the same accuracy as when operated by the gunner.
For all around vision i can already imagine solutions using systems like Iron Sight (after all they already have 360 vision with cameras) or even commercial CR/AR headsets plugged into the system.
For the lack of APS i guess that if needed, additional Arena-M casetess could be added lets say in the bustle. Arena-M features casettes that are launched vertically, then while mid air they use small impulse engines to rotate so that the explosive side is facing upwards. This system is already on trials with at least one T-72B and is a game changer against javelins as it leaves to blind spots in the upper hemisphere of the tank (unlike most western system with feature mechanically rotatable platforms which have a limit is to their maximum vertical angle of interception).
The "missile jammer" may refer to two separate systems. Firstly teh smoke launchers may include other types of countermeasures, such as thermal decoys (like the Galix system on the Leclerc). Secondly it may also refer to SPMZ-2E which distorts the electro magnetic footprint of the tank. This is very effective against anti tank mines with magnetic sensors, but may also cause premature detonation of missiles like TOW-2B, or RBS 52 Bill, both of which feature over fly top attack and they are triggered when they sense the magnetic signature of the tank under them.
As for the issue for misfires i guess that the autoloader should deal with them. But the thing is that in the patent for 2A82, it is mentioned that its ejecting mechanism is different from other guns. Perhaps there is something going on there.
The BIG problem i see with the tank (and i was surprised that you didn´t point it out) is that so far we have no confirmation of it featuring a coaxial MG.
On commander view issue :
if the Russians view the T-14 as a sort of “elite spearhead tank”, the T-14 would be in a mixed battalion accompanied by other tanks like T-90M T-80BVM. Hence any shortages in the tank abilities can be (to some extent) covered by the rest of the battalion.
It is just a guess but it seems likely!
That's how it works.
Hey RedEffect can you kindly make a video where you described shortly the characteristics of the Type 59G(BD) Durjoy?
Yes
"If its Russian, its good"
Wait till Warthunder slaps Russian bias on this tank
26k destroyed b-26s
Russia could fill it's order within a year if it really wants to.
Maintaining an active production line, ready to pick up the slack is more important.
^ This guy gets it.
What makes you think that? If anything they cancel production runs and equipment based on cost. Their ''stealth plane'' only has 11 built, their carrier project is postponed as are their Lider-class destroyers. Besides they themselves said they were going to procure 2300 T-14s and then lowered it to i believe 100. All these project involve expensive new equipment they decide to not buy, instead they upgrade older equipment.
Feddy.... pls google the "Dunning-Kruger-Effekt" !
Maybe a first step to get relief !?
@@wouter0388 You've completely missed the point. What he's saying is that if Russia were to find itself in a war tomorrow, and suddenly need a lot more T 14s, they can just throw more resources at the already existing production line and increase the output of tanks. If they shut down the production completely, they'd have to waste time getting the factory up and running again and finding all their experienced staff before they could build more T 14s.
@@cams3011 That is fine logic but seeing as russia is cancelling and postponing other projects and its economy is not doing very well its nothing but wishful thinking.
The Fact that the Media Outlet that first reported on it was fined by a Court doesn't necessarily mean what they wrote isn't true. Most Nations don't want any Problems like that to leak via Newspapers. And Russia at the Moment also isn't really known for Freedom of Press. That doesn't mean the Tank actually has Engine Problems, but a court order isn't necessary a reflection of the Truth.
I get your point, but from what I’ve said I’m guessing you’ve never been in a tank. The reverse gear is one of the most important gears in a tank, you will be looking over the back just as much as you would be facing forward. You move upto a fire position, fire, reverse out of it.
which is what T-14 is also good at (70km/h in reverse)
Leopard2a6 is still my personal favourite.
I like the Leo2A7AV more becuz it gets armor upgrade a better engine and a 130mm Cannon will be added also it gets a hardkillsystem
So I few well aimed shots from a paint ball gun is enough to blind this tank 😉
Tell you what then, you get your paintball gun and go try to knock out a T 14. Tell me how it works out for you.
Yep, pretty much a problem when relying more on electronics. Electronics are easily the most delicate parts of a tank, especially if they're outside the hull. All the more reason why urban combat isn't ideal for tanks.
@@ganonstonebreaker4231 tanks are just huge sitting ducks in an urban environment, it's true for all tanks!
@@alanoh3069 Hence why it's critical for tanks to be provided infantry support. The Syrian government, for instance couldn't use a tank properly to save their soul.
They got very good tanks (German Leopard 2's) and decided in their great wisdom to drive said tanks into urban areas without support. They then spend the next month complaining to Germany about how crummy their tanks are.
If you've ever dealt with German customer service, you'll know how far this went.
@@ganonstonebreaker4231 Syria didnt have any Lepoard 2 tanks.
Oh dang, if the Russian court system told the media they have to pay a fine then I guess everything is correct. lmao
Prehaps the lack of a backup sight is because they reason that if the turret is hit, knocking out the sights then the rest of the turret will most likely also be ruined in the process meaning that they are effectivly "mission killed" regardless?
Few years ago i read somewhere that T-14 had a ventilation/air conditioning problems and the crew didint get enough oxygen or something like that but really i dont remember where i read it or is it even true.
Maecus just open the hatch?
I know this is irrelevant but.
The Mandalorian Assasins driod.
Rotating Eyes "cameras" should have been an Option, heck even Google 360' car Maps have it.
Sponsored by war thunder? Dislike.
They wont even biuld enough of them. Their economy is stagnating, ruble is in a weak spot. Yes they may have all these cool designs, blueprints and words about their “new” technologies and machines, but the truth is they cant compete with either americans or the chinese just based on the budget of each military
I think it's just based on training, their tanks are good actually one of the best but their training is just as good as any other any other third world country.
I'm glad that you pointed out a few of the major problems with the T-14 Armata tank. Some will be angry because they bought into Russian propaganda. Poor visibility and lack of battlefield awareness will get a tanker killed quickly.
Why isn't in serial production ? They can't shake the bugs out. Too many problems.
so, when will T-14 be added to War Thunder?
soon i hope
As much as I know there is no info on armor or other tank characteristics so you cant model it ingame.
A Nice Guy They still have a lot of tanks to add for the USSR tree so not until like 2 years I reckon.
@@SwagmanKFC 2 years? That's insultingly low
Luka Opačak. It’s not a problem for the developers, since war thunder is a very authentic game. It authentically represents developer’s personal whims and bias on how tanks should be.
The reason why T 14 wasn't mass produced yet because it has a lot of opportunities for upgrade. That's all. I'm sure they will add some Backup panoramic sights and solve other problems on this tank.
The reason why is because Russia lacks money & industrial capacity. Corruption is also a pretty big factor.
Red surely has a lot of hate for the T-80BVM, he can't do a video without talking bad about the T-80BVM. Poor tank! 😂
The biggest question however is, are they compatible with farming equipment?