@@jaden_dominican-tosd the cost for one t14 is approximately 350 to 500 million rubles. And considering the Russian ruble is basically worth nothing now you can see how they could easily collapse their defense budget not to mention t14s terrible performance making it not even worth it.
The m1 abrams has a 120mm cannonwhich fits an APFSDS round(armor-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot) which could penetrate almost anything, there are many versions like: M1A2 SEPV2, M1A2 SEPV3,ABRAMSX, and M1A2 SEPV4.
Top Speed: T-14 Armata Light Weight: T-14 Armata Cheaper: T-14 Armata (bad equipment) Firing Range: T-14 Armata (Unknown damage) Combat Experience: M1 Abrams Armor: M1 Abrams (T-14 Armata has outdated Armor) Crew Safety: M1 Abrams Reliability: M1 Abrams No point in comparing a prototype to an actual tank that is serving in militaries.
@@trustmeimcool Don’t forget that if you develop a stronger and faster tank, it will have its flaws. Every single tank had flaws, there isn’t a tank that had NO flaws
@@Guywithabadenglish He isnt wrong lmao, one tank is battle proven as is getting a new upgrade (M1A2AbramsSepV4) meanwhile that piece of tall 11,6 hunk of a machine has either a crew with a total iq of a walnut or a tank whos known for breaking down in a fucking parade even though it sustained no damage
@@GlopPlopJop he is Wrong lmao Battle proven where? Also the T-14 has been battle tested multiple times. The Upgrades dosen't matter if it is a new model of tank (T-90 to T-90-A) And it has been proven multiple times to be more effective to a Weak, Barely functional engine who gets stuck in the mud and its only used for target practice. Cope harder
Stop da cap. Cheaper: yeah maybe. Speed: htf is something that heavy gonna move faster than an Abrams? Armor: sure, it has more STEEL. not composites. So an Abrams can still kill it, while it can't kill an abrams. Range: umm yeah what's the point of range if you can't destroy the target at that Range? No combat: ok maybe this one is true.
Actually there’s a huge diff, it sounds like you didn’t do research. M1A2 has more armor, just because the T-14 Armata has a 125mm and advanced system doesn’t make it better. Don’t forget what we put in our abrams, we can survive a 130mm sabot with no problems. Speed is on point. And no the T-14 isn’t cheap, russia has enough money for an abrams but not enough for T-14 because the budget. They barely test it. Height isn’t everything either. Abrams is 8ft and armata is 11’6”. And the M1 advances more as it’s being created, and more than russia’s supply on tanks. Russia and Ukraine barely have any resources left, they’re bringing out the Soviet IS-3 out of storage because all their tanks are puny weak against their own barrels. And there’s more than 10,000 Abrams, and there’s only about 2,300 T-14s. We’ve kept the Abrams tough since 1980. M1A2 wins no diff. We’re more powerful than you think
1st, the t-14 is slightly lighter, the main gun if the t-14 is 5mm larger, but our machine gun secondary is 0.20 calibre larger The t-14 is sitting around waiting for enough units to be made and the m1 Abrams, a relic tank from the same period as the t-80 and t-90, is around in large numbers
There is such a thing as a point of diminishing return. That is why the 120 hasn’t gotten any bigger. As far as the coax, that is specifically for light skinned vehicles and troops. Ballistically speaking, the 7.62 (or comparable round .308) is one of the best rounds in mass production. Also, the armada swirlies tank has thus far been a failure and is why the production was pushed back 3 times (I think?). Catching a tank on fire during its dog and pony show is also not a good sign. I’m not sayin it doesn’t have potential, but this is the first time in history that Russia has tried to produce a tank that is in the same class as the Abrams family, their SOP has always been to outnumber us and use less man power. There is a triangle where you want to have speed/mobility, firepower, and armor. You can’t have the best stats in all three, so it’s finding the right amount of each stat for your tactics and SOP to maximize your lethality when mated up with a non turbulent crew.
I think the normal arbams sep v3 would work better here because of the fact the abrams X has a autoloader. The Abrams turret ring is already large and no doubt that its turret ring can get penetrated by a 125mm HEAT round or something
9 abrams have ever been destroyed in battle. 7 from friendly fire, 2 were destroyed with explosives to prevent capture after they were disabled, and that was over the course of 40 years. The T14 has never seen combat
Oh ye sorry, guys he’s referring to an abrams with no tracks, composite armoured plating or armour packages, no gun penetration, no crew survivability, no thermals or blow out panels and no loader. See he is correct.
Oh he’s talking about the MAUS. Ohhhh right not like he was talking about a tank with metal panels that are barley breached, a cannon that can shoot so much rounds it’s called the freedom tank, and has a good purpose
T-14: I’m tougher, I’m stronger, I’m faster, I’m better. Abrams: I thought your doctrine was quantity over quality? What’s it now? Bankrupt and outnumbered?
I'll take the abrams, since it's an actual tank and not a propagandistic stunt. Honestly I don't think Russia will ever catch up to the leopards or Abrams, i'll take the leopard personally, but both are just infinitely more advanced than anything Russia has ever fielded
Russia fielded everythkng better than america ever did. The only thinf the Abrams was useful for was to put shame on america's technology. Plus the Leopards 2 had be proven to be easy targets to the T-90, the Antecessor of the T-14. America will never catch uo with Russia, no matter how hard they try. Or their propagandists cry.
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.) Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium) Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol) Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration) Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata) Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H) Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams) General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system) Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine) Weight of the Crew: Abrams Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams Used as Propaganda: Abrams Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
@@Guywithabadenglish and somehow abrams exists and actually does its job, unlike the armata that hasn't been even used anywhere else than on a parade lmao
The M1A2 SEP V3 abrams would have no trouble destroying a tank that breaks down by itself, plus the abrams x is the T14 rival, not the M1A2. Even then I think the most promising tank by far rn is the KF51 Panther, 130mm gun, much larger sabots and range. Fuel economy that outclassed even the abrams X. It doesn’t hace the 30mm anti missile turret and a lower profile but in a 1v1 my moneys on the KF51
@@theapple3160the M1A2 SepV4 HC was made in 2018... It has 2 different active protection systems and can jam electronics up to 2 miles away it also has access to M829A4 which bypasses ERA not only that but it has ERA that is dual layered it also features depleted uranium alloy armor that can stop a 750mm tungsten rod just by itself its HC Varient also has a the longest turret meaning even more armor the armata isndoomed
Actual Combat Effectiveness: Abrams Export potential: Abrams Kills: Abrams Construction Quality: Abrams No. of Units: Abrams Combat experience: Abrams Protection: Abrams (T14's armor is thinner and its soft(or hard, i forgot) kill systems rely on the crew finding a mach 0.8 AT missile coming at them) Soft factors (crew comfort, ability to communicate, etc): Abrams (T14 engine is too loud for commander to shout commands lol) Use as propaganda: Armata
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.) Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium) Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol) Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration) Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata) Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H) Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams) General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system) Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine) Weight of the Crew: Abrams Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams Used as Propaganda: Abrams Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
@@Guywithabadenglish Aint no way lil bro comparing the m1a2 abrams v1 against the armata, try again with the abrams v3 and you'll find out why its probably gonna outlive you before it retires lmao
Better in paper: Armata🇷🇺 Better IRL: Abrams🇺🇸 Better in war: Abrams🇺🇸 Better for parades: Armata🇷🇺🤡 Just better: Abrams🇺🇸 Trolls when they see this:😡 Me:🤪
Can’t say it’s better in real life if it’s never been battle tested, and with the only other tanks the Abrams have faced were weak t-72 export models with ammunition from the 1960s.
@@JosueHernandez-nu5cp Yeah I agree, the Armata has never been tested in a combat situation so we cannot say that it is better, with the Abrams it is the case. Remember what I said? Trolls when they see my comment:😡 🤪
@@trustmeimcool M1A2 sepv3 has thermal imaging on the same level as T14, and the T14 is 3.3 meters high, the M1A2 2.4 meters high, so T14 is much more easy to detect than M1A2. And besides that, armies fight wars, not just tanks, T14s are going to be destroyed even before the reach the frontlines by F-35s or drones
@@jaden_dominican-tosd the tanks are both really similar to each other, there isn't much difference in a lot of technical parameters, the armata has for sure better crew survivability, but abrams has a lower profile so it's harder to detect in the first place, and modern tank warfare is more about fire control and detection systems than parameters like speed or weight. + abrams is battle tested and armata is a brand new tank that never saw combat And if we should believe the russian claim that T-90M has the same effectivnes as armata, then armata isn't that good after all, look how many T-90M's were destroyed in Ukraine
@@garman418 see how many Leopard 2's have been destroyed in ukraine? "Best tank in the world" and plus the Armata has been proven to have a less detectable profile, see what weird triangles in it? That's what makes detectin the Armata so difficult. But you're correct here's the difference Speed: both tanks reach on max a 75KM/H top speed the Armata reaches it in around a minute the Abrams takes a minute and 20 seconds. Laser targeting system: Armata has but is only for missles. That's all.
I bet hes Russian. The Abrams outpreforms the T14 in all of those things. The abrams can kill a t14, but a t14 cant kill an abrams so thats what made the armor part kind of confusing.
We’re not gonna talk about how the m1 abrams dominated in the golf war and how it has a damn jet engine in the back. Yes it could literally drive down the road like a normal car. It can go up to 60 miles an hour
Bro the Oil Stealer, Enemy of the T Pool, Gas Guzzler Deluxe is better then the T14. If Russian tanks were dancers, their best move would be break dancing.
M1A2 Abrams: Has a secret deposit armor used by highly skilled crew T-14 Armata: Russias first tank since the T-72 that is actually different, used by a crew that has thier tanks destroyed by a "inferior" military and stolen by farmers of said "inferior" military
Speed: M1 Abrams: 72.42 km/h T14 Armata: 75km/h....wow...much faster (no) Armor: M1 Abrams 800-900mm Armata-900mm ±Identical Price: M1 Abrams from 6.2 m $ (Depends on configuration) Armata: 8.5m$ Range: M1 8km T14 9km Conclusion: You lied everywhere) P.S M1 Abrams 1979 and since 1990 he has been actively participating in the battle (moreover, according to total losses out of 10,000 damaged / destroyed ± 20 And while Armata first went to parades in 2015 (and then nowhere else)
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.) Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium) Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol) Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration) Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata) Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H) Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams) General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system) Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine) Weight of the Crew: Abrams Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams Used as Propaganda: Abrams Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
@@Guywithabadenglish 1)About the junk radio:How do you know how it compares to Abroms if Armata doesn't exist? 2)Abrams armor is not made of aluminum, - Chobham armor is an unofficial name of combined armor in European countries and USA. It is also made of a special secret alloy that has not yet been penetrated. 3)You can't talk about any speed characteristics because, again, Armata doesn't exist. Speed of T-90:40-45 km/h, Abrams:40 km/h (I did not compare them because it is the same). 4) Mud? Let's see: ruclips.net/video/TCXwgPZXScM/видео.html The Abrams got out without any problems. So, what did you lie about? Getting stuck in the mud? Not the Abrams, the T-90: ruclips.net/video/4VsmnxM8288/видео.html Used as propaganda? Seriously? How many Abrams have been destroyed since 1980? 20. Now count the hundreds of T-90s destroyed since 1991. Here we go again with the proof: RPGs can't take it: ruclips.net/video/2gJF5vP0xig/видео.html. Mines don't take it: ruclips.net/video/rYWgG_VApWI/видео.html ATGMs won't take it: ruclips.net/video/--6ffqOqDto/видео.html (ARAT MK-19 blast defense system is activated) Now let's take a look at the T-72: ruclips.net/video/Ovxz1_hPJKQ/видео.html AND THE T-90: ruclips.net/user/shortsUUNUwe4YqY0?feature=share
It's stupid to compare tanks from different times. For T 14 Armata is a worthy opponent only of the Abrams x or kf 51 panther, but not like the tanks of the older generation.
😎sin duda a veces las apariencias engañan M1A2 es un pequeño nucleo de poder....no invencible pero de lo mejor que existe hoy en dia,el armata en mi opinión tmbn tiene lo suyo....y es muy poderoso...seria interesante un enfrentamiento(obviamente yo estoy en contra de los conflictos belicos)solo por morbo para q veamos lo fuerte que han progresado en el M1A2.💪😎
Engine Reliability? Abarms gets a point the t14 uses a copy of the porshe tiger engine that was known to break down hell it even broke down during the parade in red square, thing was so heavy the recovery car couldn't carry it back so it was stuck there BTW I love the ironiy of Russia saying "We are gonna denazi ukraine" while using a 1940 tiger prototype engine as there main engine in there 21st century tank but don't tell the Russianboo's this :) (BTW anyone want a source Lazerpig did a great video on the Terrible-14 Shitmata)
Issue:The Russians use Automatic Loaders instead of Manual which may sound like a good thing but this makes it have a higher chance of getting the ammunition on fire.Also,it was found that a lot of T14’s were controlled by complete idiots and there are very few compared to the M1 Abrams having a manual loader,explosion door,and much greater numbers.
Isn't the Abrams the one controlled by absolute idiots? The main issue with the abrams is that they Barely can last against a HEAT or AP or an RPG as well.
@@GuywithabadenglishDepends which area it is hit.Also the US military doesn’t have idiots as tank crews,that’s Russian tank crews.For comparison,a Russian soldier was putting up a landmine sign using a landmine whilst another Russian soldier was recording next to it.
@@Tissueroll011 No, tanks have different hit areas but they still have armor, also Russian education for tank crews is 10x smarter than the US tank crews, as an example: An U.S soldier literally shot their own tank using the same tank, and the actual enemies did nothing exept recording. Both tanks were destroyed and 2 soldiers were captured. So the actual idiots are the US tank crews, especially since they have more incidents of friendly fire and don't pretend the US also failed to set landmines, since there's a video of their own tanks Ramming into enemy landmines as if they didn't just watch one of their tanks being destroyed. Plus, the US tank Crews barely knows how to use their own equipments, there's literally a tank who ate shit because he dosen't know how to back down, so they all died by an RPG.
@America I'm not a soldier so yeah. Due to gas turbine it gets hot easily and it will spit some smoke it would be easily visible for enemy atgm and also if it got broken the meintenance cost would be so high unlike the German leopard 2
If you watch the video "Why T-14 Armata SUCKS!" by some American propagandist, you'll learn that Abrams X (which is just a technology test bed by the way) has all the 'problems' that the T-14 Armata has.
@@definitelyfrank9341 it’s newer technology and it’s prototype mostly but man don’t come here talking about things that have nothing to do with this comment
@@definitelyfrank9341 So both are just the prototypes too early to see in combat. That makes them perfect to compare... (not 22 hand-made Armata against Abrams with 10 000 units)
ה-t-14 הוא טנק קרב מודרני טוב, האמת שהוא מתעלה על ה-M1A2 אברמס, אבל מה אם אני אגיד לכם שיש גרסה מודרנית וקטלנית יותר, M1A2 SEPV3 ABRAMS, אבל לרוסיה יש גם אחרת בעניין הזה, ה-T-90M המודרני🇺🇸🇷🇺
Weakspots of t14: The roof front hull plate or as in driver sight. Turrey of t14 is weakness because if you aim at the lower front turret plate you will destroy the t14, Destroying the turret ring that goes around, and have a chance to hit the ammo. Lasty, The last weakness of the t14 is hull sides, Even tho theres era giant bricks its still a weakspot, The era giant bricks are supposed to stop atgms and heats from penetrating the sides, unlike apfsds, so it will be destroyed in 1 shot on the side of the hull
You'd forgot about these. Experience Fire power Main weapon Total damages Combat Safety Total weapons Designed Handles Numbers Piercing powers Visibility Variants Fear Reliability Smaller Type of armours
@@gaddielsantillan5247 Just because its 5mm higher dosent mean that shit matters on a tank on tank fight, you need to look for crew exp tank mobility APS systems and other stuff other than armor and firepower (abrams also wins in both of that)
The T-14 is for show, and it's really just a proof of concept right now. it's not being used or manufactured. The Russian Federation just doesn't have spending budget to produce them in mass. The T-90 is still their main battle tank. The T-90 is easier to produce and it's half the price. Don't let anyone tell you the T-90 is being replaced yet, it's a beast all on it's own. The M1A2 Abrams cost 10 million to manufacturer. There is a reason for that too. It's a very advanced tank, and proven design. It's also the only tank in service by the US. The Russians have T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s in service.
Abrams is a mass produced tank that is known for its combat achievement in many conflicts. Currently, the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are using the M1A2 Abrams
Speed - Armatta Firepower - Abrams Armor - Abrams Only used for parades - Armatta Never seen combat or used - Armatta Veteran - Abrams Have been used in combat - Abrams Lighter - Tide So abrams wins, stop thinking that the armatta can do anything, it can't do shit against landmines, fighter jets, bomber drones, Attack Helicopter 2 hits by a javelin
1. Armatta is a new tank, so Russia don’t have many of them. 2. Bro, do you really think that in 1vs1 abrams will win? T-14 has better armor, better speed, has uninhabited tank tower, has better caliber (abrams105mm Armatta125mm), has very good protected crew module. Yes t-14 is bigger, but it has uninhabitable tower so that doesn’t really matter. P.S. Why am I answering this types of comments? There is so many I can’t answer all of them. What am I doing with my life?
@@CucumberUtkaall you said is cap. 1. Armatta isn't even used in war. 2. T-14 has shit armor, and if Abrams hits the tower, T-14 will be unable to shoot, and all it needs for Abrams is to fire into the very front where all 3 crew memebers are at T-14. Abrams also has a better and stronger calliber (120 millimeter against 115 mm Armatta), it also is way more powerful. Abrams is way larger and it's one of the largest tanks today, while T-14 is the size of T-72 which is the worst tank in Russia and is smaller than all NATO tanks. Abrams negs
@@Melkorsolostheverse 1. When I said that armada is used in the war? 2. Bro.. armatta has 125 mm gun and Abraham’s 120mm, you can see it on the internet. 3. Even more cringy. Shit armour? T-14 has over 1000mm armor even in sides of tank. The abraams has worse armour than armatta. 4. When I said that “that doesn’t really matter” maybe you are right, but CANT penetrate crew module. It has very big armor. 5. Armatta is bigger than abrams, and bigger than t72. Smaller tanks with same guns as the big ones is better. 6. T72 isn’t the worst tank. It’s just old and there are less and less t72 in Russian army. Russian OBT is t90. All what you said is CAP and LIE. Who even told you that? 2 is the most cringest text that I’ve ever seen. My source is ministry of defense is Russia.
Time and time again it has been proven that quality reigns supreme over quantity in the modern battlefield dealing with armored units like the Abrams. The T-14 may be cheaper but I don’t believe that it has enough survivability to last in modern warfare for more than 2 skirmishes.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Any suggestions for a new short?
Tejas vs jf 17
One where it’s real
Make a realistic comparison
An actually factual comparison
Yeah make one based off real facts that isn’t just a comparison based off the way the Russian propaganda makes it look!
You forgot about stealth. Easily given to the T-14 as it's never been seen outside of parades
also don't forget it doesnt appear in any war it fought
I don’t think it has ever been deployed I’m pretty sure it’s still in testing.
@@ethangotreaux2 Its a prop weapon. It will never enter full production. The Russians just don't have the infrastructure for it.
what about from now u will see it in Ukraine Putin himself said that
Bro violated the entire video 💀🗿
T-14 is so dangerous that even russian are afraid to use in battlefield
The t14 is so good at collapsing things that colapsed Russia's budget
@@mr.fighterbomber3345 YOU my friend, is very biased
@@jaden_dominican-tosd but I am right
@@mr.fighterbomber3345 well since you allegedly right, how about you show some evidence hmm?
@@jaden_dominican-tosd the cost for one t14 is approximately 350 to 500 million rubles. And considering the Russian ruble is basically worth nothing now you can see how they could easily collapse their defense budget not to mention t14s terrible performance making it not even worth it.
Source : trust me bro 💀
Source:my drunk russian friend
Source: any american propaganda you walnut
T 14 is a tank that is good for other countries testing their weapon at Ukraine war.😂
Source : stalinum tank
@@somua_sm war thunder be like
The m1 abrams has a 120mm cannonwhich fits an APFSDS round(armor-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot) which could penetrate almost anything, there are many versions like: M1A2 SEPV2, M1A2 SEPV3,ABRAMSX, and M1A2 SEPV4.
Top Speed: T-14 Armata
Light Weight: T-14 Armata
Cheaper: T-14 Armata (bad equipment)
Firing Range: T-14 Armata (Unknown damage)
Combat Experience: M1 Abrams
Armor: M1 Abrams (T-14 Armata has outdated Armor)
Crew Safety: M1 Abrams
Reliability: M1 Abrams
No point in comparing a prototype to an actual tank that is serving in militaries.
one actually works while other breaks down on a parade 💀💀💀
@@trustmeimcool abram tanks are heavy 💀
@@Foundbison you do realize the tank didnt break down but the dumbass possibly drunk driver had the handbreak on while driving?
@@trustmeimcool Don’t forget that if you develop a stronger and faster tank, it will have its flaws. Every single tank had flaws, there isn’t a tank that had NO flaws
Stupid it didn't broke down, the driver put the hand breaks on without knowing cause the driver was a trainee
@@ohayoch. Correct. But how come they didn’t turn the handbrakes off?
(Haven’t seen the full footage so correct me if im wrong.)
On today’s episode of “How biased can someone be?!” we have our contestant C2_G
…and bt-5. If you understood you understood.
There ain’t no way this 10 year old kid said the T-14 is better than the oil stealing machine
Ironic hearing "10 year old kid" from you
@@Guywithabadenglish He isnt wrong lmao, one tank is battle proven as is getting a new upgrade (M1A2AbramsSepV4) meanwhile that piece of tall 11,6 hunk of a machine has either a crew with a total iq of a walnut or a tank whos known for breaking down in a fucking parade even though it sustained no damage
Ain’t no way bro said the armor is better then a tank USED IN AFGHANISTAN, UKRAINE WAR (now) AND HAS THE MOST DURABLE ARMOR A TANK CAN HAVE 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
@@GlopPlopJop he is Wrong lmao
Battle proven where? Also the T-14 has been battle tested multiple times.
The Upgrades dosen't matter if it is a new model of tank (T-90 to T-90-A)
And it has been proven multiple times to be more effective to a Weak, Barely functional engine who gets stuck in the mud and its only used for target practice.
Cope harder
i mean on paper the t14 is significantly better, although the most sources we have are from russian media
Ill say abrams is better because its battle tested
true
@huhhuhman4984well thats obivous because the time diffrence smart guy
I'm pretty sure the adrams has only fought rpgs and some old mbts
@@rubenwell That is true, but the Abrams still defeats the Russian T72B3s and T 64s since the Abrams Fought these types of tanks
@MarkedOne still did not fight any NLAWS or other advanced anti tank missiles. probably just some rusty kornets.
Slower than challenger: T-14
Lighter than challenger: T-14
Speed - T-14
Lighter - T-14
Cheaper - T-14
Range - T-14
No combat - T-14
🧢🧢🧢
😂😂
Stop da cap. Cheaper: yeah maybe.
Speed: htf is something that heavy gonna move faster than an Abrams?
Armor: sure, it has more STEEL. not composites. So an Abrams can still kill it, while it can't kill an abrams.
Range: umm yeah what's the point of range if you can't destroy the target at that Range?
No combat: ok maybe this one is true.
Abrams fought against freedom fighters and still gets killed😂
@@Btflaxco no
Abrams: the most advanced and common tank to be used in war
T14: just a knock off of the challenger 1 and breaks down
This guy: hmmmm lets reverse it
Abrams is definitely not the most advanced
Both tanks are from 2 different eras
@@CocoLeCat you are right but still more advanced than the armanta
@Troll2 yea exploding means perfect condition, and you are right, armanta is better than the abrams because it has a toilet inside
@Troll2 thanks for telling me to research, the armanta also broke down while in a parade, definetly in a good condition
@Troll2 have you seen the armata fight? Also what is up with that WW2 German engine then?
Actually there’s a huge diff, it sounds like you didn’t do research. M1A2 has more armor, just because the T-14 Armata has a 125mm and advanced system doesn’t make it better. Don’t forget what we put in our abrams, we can survive a 130mm sabot with no problems. Speed is on point. And no the T-14 isn’t cheap, russia has enough money for an abrams but not enough for T-14 because the budget. They barely test it. Height isn’t everything either. Abrams is 8ft and armata is 11’6”. And the M1 advances more as it’s being created, and more than russia’s supply on tanks. Russia and Ukraine barely have any resources left, they’re bringing out the Soviet IS-3 out of storage because all their tanks are puny weak against their own barrels. And there’s more than 10,000 Abrams, and there’s only about 2,300 T-14s. We’ve kept the Abrams tough since 1980. M1A2 wins no diff. We’re more powerful than you think
And it’s only lighter by 10 tons
bruh, are you joking? IS-3 on 🇷🇺🇺🇦war? you are lucky if you find rideable IS-3 in museums
@@cherryp1zza thoes dontesk guys got one
Leopard 2 entered the chat
Nerd
1st, the t-14 is slightly lighter, the main gun if the t-14 is 5mm larger, but our machine gun secondary is 0.20 calibre larger
The t-14 is sitting around waiting for enough units to be made and the m1 Abrams, a relic tank from the same period as the t-80 and t-90, is around in large numbers
thanks for that, Ill compare the machine guns next time, since I am a bit new to tanks and I was a bit dumb so I didnt know tanks had machine guns
There is such a thing as a point of diminishing return. That is why the 120 hasn’t gotten any bigger. As far as the coax, that is specifically for light skinned vehicles and troops. Ballistically speaking, the 7.62 (or comparable round .308) is one of the best rounds in mass production. Also, the armada swirlies tank has thus far been a failure and is why the production was pushed back 3 times (I think?). Catching a tank on fire during its dog and pony show is also not a good sign. I’m not sayin it doesn’t have potential, but this is the first time in history that Russia has tried to produce a tank that is in the same class as the Abrams family, their SOP has always been to outnumber us and use less man power. There is a triangle where you want to have speed/mobility, firepower, and armor. You can’t have the best stats in all three, so it’s finding the right amount of each stat for your tactics and SOP to maximize your lethality when mated up with a non turbulent crew.
@@arkitektenplus7583 exactly
Yea, like machine guns on tanks are the main weapons for tank on tank combat.... (obvious sarcasm)
@ArkitektenPlus Exactly, but this is a tank on tank combat scenario.
"Russian bias doesn't exist"
Russian bias:
Naw bruh, Stalin took one look at this and said: “Aw hell naw.”
No bias with this hunk of junk!
Breaks down during parade 😄 🤣
proof?
@@dudewithabalaclava5094 ruclips.net/video/DeJzuo2TsfM/видео.html
@@dudewithabalaclava5094, proof enough?
It was not break down they did a mistake the tank had handbrakes on
@@AlexAviationChannel, it also apparently can't be fielded in any number. I suppose that you have selected the T-62 as a more viable option.
the glazing is crazy
The new AbramsX: 🗿
It hasn’t been built
@rafaelsuffers6825 same as the Abrams X propaganda
The New T-90-A
@@Guywithabadenglish America and Russia both suck, they're both gonna be wiped off of the face of the planet, and I will get the spoils
I think the normal arbams sep v3 would work better here because of the fact the abrams X has a autoloader. The Abrams turret ring is already large and no doubt that its turret ring can get penetrated by a 125mm HEAT round or something
9 abrams have ever been destroyed in battle. 7 from friendly fire, 2 were destroyed with explosives to prevent capture after they were disabled, and that was over the course of 40 years. The T14 has never seen combat
Oh ye sorry, guys he’s referring to an abrams with no tracks, composite armoured plating or armour packages, no gun penetration, no crew survivability, no thermals or blow out panels and no loader. See he is correct.
Bassically the sherman
Naw bruh if an easy eight moves around the rear of that blind tank, it could blow a hole straight into the engine with it’s 76 😂
Holy shit he’s talking about Chi-hi (or something that Japanese ww2 tank)
Oh he’s talking about the MAUS. Ohhhh right not like he was talking about a tank with metal panels that are barley breached, a cannon that can shoot so much rounds it’s called the freedom tank, and has a good purpose
@@Rehehhehehe you forgot the key part that it actually exists.
T-14: I’m tougher, I’m stronger, I’m faster, I’m better.
Abrams: I thought your doctrine was quantity over quality? What’s it now? Bankrupt and outnumbered?
well idk that explains why russia still mostly uses the t 72
Bro spits facts! It’s a meme but still more accurate than this video made by some ding dong who knows nothing on the topic!
I'll take the abrams, since it's an actual tank and not a propagandistic stunt. Honestly I don't think Russia will ever catch up to the leopards or Abrams, i'll take the leopard personally, but both are just infinitely more advanced than anything Russia has ever fielded
Russia fielded everythkng better than america ever did.
The only thinf the Abrams was useful for was to put shame on america's technology.
Plus the Leopards 2 had be proven to be easy targets to the T-90, the Antecessor of the T-14. America will never catch uo with Russia, no matter how hard they try. Or their propagandists cry.
yep the pfp and name checks out, based opinion
Id be your tank driver😀
T14 using all its shells
Target hit
Ricochet
Hit
Hit
Undamaged
M1 Freebrams calling for air support
Target destroyed
Target destroyed
Target destroyed
1. abrams-thicker armor
2. t14 is lighter
3. abrams is cheaper
4. abrams doesn‘t have a mechanical issue every half second.
Actually works:
Abrams 1-0 armata
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.)
Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium)
Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol)
Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration)
Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata)
Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H)
Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams)
General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system)
Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine)
Weight of the Crew: Abrams
Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams
Used as Propaganda: Abrams
Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
@@Guywithabadenglish
source: dude trust me
+ abrams actually works and is not used only as a propaganda on parades like those 20 armata tanks lol
@@wenomechainsamatumajarbisaun69 Source: my balls
+ Armata is way better and its not used as a way to swim in mud lol.
@@Guywithabadenglish you have no balls commie lol
@@Guywithabadenglish and somehow abrams exists and actually does its job, unlike the armata that hasn't been even used anywhere else than on a parade lmao
Abram’s wins because it’s never gonna be in active combat 💀
The M1A2 SEP V3 abrams would have no trouble destroying a tank that breaks down by itself, plus the abrams x is the T14 rival, not the M1A2.
Even then I think the most promising tank by far rn is the KF51 Panther, 130mm gun, much larger sabots and range. Fuel economy that outclassed even the abrams X. It doesn’t hace the 30mm anti missile turret and a lower profile but in a 1v1 my moneys on the KF51
I think your wrong with the Anti missile turret one, it's supposed to be a secondary weapon.
oh no the scary Abram tank that has been battle tested against iraqi 1960s export tanks!!! ahhh
@@theapple3160 oh noooo the scary Russian armatta tank that's only good on paper
@@theapple3160the M1A2 SepV4 HC was made in 2018... It has 2 different active protection systems and can jam electronics up to 2 miles away it also has access to M829A4 which bypasses ERA not only that but it has ERA that is dual layered it also features depleted uranium alloy armor that can stop a 750mm tungsten rod just by itself its HC Varient also has a the longest turret meaning even more armor the armata isndoomed
@@vangard9725To be fair, every tank struggles to defend itself against apfsds rounds
Bro graduated from RUclips shorts 💀
Actual Combat Effectiveness: Abrams
Export potential: Abrams
Kills: Abrams
Construction Quality: Abrams
No. of Units: Abrams
Combat experience: Abrams
Protection: Abrams (T14's armor is thinner and its soft(or hard, i forgot) kill systems rely on the crew finding a mach 0.8 AT missile coming at them)
Soft factors (crew comfort, ability to communicate, etc): Abrams (T14 engine is too loud for commander to shout commands lol)
Use as propaganda: Armata
You reversed it pal
@rafaelsuffers6825 it was first combat tested in Syria.
Plus where did the Abrams went in combat huh?
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.)
Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium)
Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol)
Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration)
Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata)
Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H)
Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams)
General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system)
Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine)
Weight of the Crew: Abrams
Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams
Used as Propaganda: Abrams
Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
@@Guywithabadenglish Aint no way lil bro comparing the m1a2 abrams v1 against the armata, try again with the abrams v3 and you'll find out why its probably gonna outlive you before it retires lmao
Stats on paper vs Combat proven Stats
Better in paper: Armata🇷🇺
Better IRL: Abrams🇺🇸
Better in war: Abrams🇺🇸
Better for parades: Armata🇷🇺🤡
Just better: Abrams🇺🇸
Trolls when they see this:😡
Me:🤪
Me being a M1A1 SA Abrams fanboy: 🍷🗿
Can’t say it’s better in real life if it’s never been battle tested, and with the only other tanks the Abrams have faced were weak t-72 export models with ammunition from the 1960s.
@@JosueHernandez-nu5cp Yeah I agree, the Armata has never been tested in a combat situation so we cannot say that it is better, with the Abrams it is the case.
Remember what I said? Trolls when they see my comment:😡
🤪
@@laaams it’s just facts from the gulf war, you can reject them if you’d like but it won’t do you any good. 🫠
@@JosueHernandez-nu5cpplus Abrams got destroyed by houthis and yemenis
Source: drunk russian from war thunder
Number built:
Armata ≈ 20
Abrams sepv3 = 160+
Winner?
Abrams
@Huh Huhman no, wouldn't, and even if, it would have to defeat 8 M1A2 sepv3 tanks to be worth it
@@trustmeimcool M1A2 sepv3 has thermal imaging on the same level as T14, and the T14 is 3.3 meters high, the M1A2 2.4 meters high, so T14 is much more easy to detect than M1A2. And besides that, armies fight wars, not just tanks, T14s are going to be destroyed even before the reach the frontlines by F-35s or drones
Abrams only won in quantity, but in quality hmm?
@@jaden_dominican-tosd the tanks are both really similar to each other, there isn't much difference in a lot of technical parameters, the armata has for sure better crew survivability, but abrams has a lower profile so it's harder to detect in the first place, and modern tank warfare is more about fire control and detection systems than parameters like speed or weight. + abrams is battle tested and armata is a brand new tank that never saw combat
And if we should believe the russian claim that T-90M has the same effectivnes as armata, then armata isn't that good after all, look how many T-90M's were destroyed in Ukraine
@@garman418 see how many Leopard 2's have been destroyed in ukraine? "Best tank in the world" and plus the Armata has been proven to have a less detectable profile, see what weird triangles in it? That's what makes detectin the Armata so difficult.
But you're correct here's the difference
Speed: both tanks reach on max a 75KM/H top speed the Armata reaches it in around a minute the Abrams takes a minute and 20 seconds.
Laser targeting system: Armata has but is only for missles.
That's all.
I bet hes Russian. The Abrams outpreforms the T14 in all of those things. The abrams can kill a t14, but a t14 cant kill an abrams so thats what made the armor part kind of confusing.
Parade tank vs battle tested tank 😂
Wow so funny
So fact-less
So biased
So cringe
So useless comment
yes abram got blow her head alot in afganistan
@@nhanvo6559 That was the export lmao you buffoon
@@nhanvo65591 crew survived meanwhile Russian tank turret pop off💀
Good videos
Armata just being a scale model 💀
Let’s not forget the turret explosive ejection💀
AbramsX join the chat
Its a myth
@@checkmate7745 you’re a myth if you don’t know it exists
Hello comrade
@Tony_bolagna cause it is still not finished they are testing it
@@checkmate7745what is a myth
We’re not gonna talk about how the m1 abrams dominated in the golf war and how it has a damn jet engine in the back. Yes it could literally drive down the road like a normal car. It can go up to 60 miles an hour
Жаль правда, что Т-14 всего лишь макет, а так да, на бумаге все круто-мощно
Nice pfp
At least the m1a2 actually works
Bro knows less about tanks than a 5 year old
Yes, there is a mistake. Abrams is cheaper. But t-14 in 1vs1 is better.
Yes, there is a mistake. Abrams is cheaper. But t-14 in 1vs1 is better.
@@CucumberUtkafirst of all Alzheimer’s
@@CucumberUtkasecond of all Alzheimer’s
@@CucumberUtka the last thing I have to say is Alzheimer’s
Bro the Oil Stealer, Enemy of the T Pool, Gas Guzzler Deluxe is better then the T14.
If Russian tanks were dancers, their best move would be break dancing.
M1A2 Abrams: Has a secret deposit armor used by highly skilled crew
T-14 Armata: Russias first tank since the T-72 that is actually different, used by a crew that has thier tanks destroyed by a "inferior" military and stolen by farmers of said "inferior" military
Speed: M1 Abrams: 72.42 km/h T14 Armata: 75km/h....wow...much faster (no) Armor: M1 Abrams 800-900mm Armata-900mm ±Identical Price: M1 Abrams from 6.2 m $ (Depends on configuration) Armata: 8.5m$
Range: M1 8km T14 9km
Conclusion: You lied everywhere)
P.S M1 Abrams 1979 and since 1990 he has been actively participating in the battle (moreover, according to total losses out of 10,000 damaged / destroyed ± 20 And while Armata first went to parades in 2015 (and then nowhere else)
You forgot ammunition but this is enough
I feel it wrong
Communication: Armata (Abrams has frequent jams on radio, at least comoared to the armata.)
Armor: Armata (The Armor is thinner but it is made from combined materials instead of metal and Aluminium)
Non friendly fire Kills: Armata (lol)
Shell Caliber: Armata (At least in armor penetration)
Shell penetration: Armata (AP shells were refined in the Armata)
Top Speed/Acceleration: Armata (Takes less time than the T-90 Which is an amazing tank Around 50 Seconds to reach 75Km/H)
Non-stick build: Armata (they use special built Tracks to not stick in the mud, water or Snow, unlike the Abrams)
General Protection: Armata (They have an Laser Targeting system as an Anti-Missle defense system)
Engine quality: Armata (Silent, less chance to burn out when shelled and less gas consumption, the same can't be said to the loud and almost useless Abrams engine)
Weight of the Crew: Abrams
Getting stuck in the mud: Abrams
Used as Propaganda: Abrams
Used only as example on why tanks should have multi-pourpose Roles: Abrams
Armata was tested in Syria ou bufoon
@@Guywithabadenglish
1)About the junk radio:How do you know how it compares to Abroms if Armata doesn't exist?
2)Abrams armor is not made of aluminum,
- Chobham armor is an unofficial name of combined armor in European countries and USA.
It is also made of a special secret alloy that has not yet been penetrated.
3)You can't talk about any speed characteristics because, again, Armata doesn't exist.
Speed of T-90:40-45 km/h, Abrams:40 km/h (I did not compare them because it is the same).
4) Mud? Let's see:
ruclips.net/video/TCXwgPZXScM/видео.html
The Abrams got out without any problems.
So, what did you lie about?
Getting stuck in the mud? Not the Abrams, the T-90:
ruclips.net/video/4VsmnxM8288/видео.html
Used as propaganda? Seriously?
How many Abrams have been destroyed since 1980? 20.
Now count the hundreds of T-90s destroyed since 1991.
Here we go again with the proof:
RPGs can't take it: ruclips.net/video/2gJF5vP0xig/видео.html.
Mines don't take it: ruclips.net/video/rYWgG_VApWI/видео.html
ATGMs won't take it: ruclips.net/video/--6ffqOqDto/видео.html
(ARAT MK-19 blast defense system is activated)
Now let's take a look at the T-72: ruclips.net/video/Ovxz1_hPJKQ/видео.html
AND THE T-90: ruclips.net/user/shortsUUNUwe4YqY0?feature=share
It's stupid to compare tanks from different times. For T 14 Armata is a worthy opponent only of the Abrams x or kf 51 panther, but not like the tanks of the older generation.
*M1a2 SEP v3 with trophy system has entered the chat*
Armata brokes down in the middle of the parade....😂😂😂
you know why? it's because T-14 uses the same engine used on Tiger 1 in WW2, and That engine broke almost everytime
After that it still gonna change it
😎sin duda a veces las apariencias engañan M1A2 es un pequeño nucleo de poder....no invencible pero de lo mejor que existe hoy en dia,el armata en mi opinión tmbn tiene lo suyo....y es muy poderoso...seria interesante un enfrentamiento(obviamente yo estoy en contra de los conflictos belicos)solo por morbo para q veamos lo fuerte que han progresado en el M1A2.💪😎
Gracias
Это первый нормальный танк России Сука
Reality
T-14 0km/h
Abrams 72 km/h
Armor 1000~~mm abrams
Oenetration 900~ m256 abrams
Now do the M1a2 SEP v3
sure
Wait does this fricking M1a2 SEP v3 cost 6 billion dollars!
that wouldn't be fair, because its comparing a 6billion dollar tank to a 6 million dollar tank
@@C2_Gnono the whole m1a2 sep v3 program is worth 6billion
@@C2_G yea, usa on top, stay broke ruskis
For a second I thought you were crazy, but then I saw your pfp and now it makes sense
all things the T14 realistically lacks and the M1 excels in
If the M1 had any quality in the first place
You sure the 70ton Abrams is lighter and faster than the 55 tons t-14
Engine Reliability?
Abarms gets a point
the t14 uses a copy of the porshe tiger engine that was known to break down hell it even broke down during the parade in red square, thing was so heavy the recovery car couldn't carry it back so it was stuck there
BTW I love the ironiy of Russia saying "We are gonna denazi ukraine" while using a 1940 tiger prototype engine as there main engine in there 21st century tank but don't tell the Russianboo's this :)
(BTW anyone want a source Lazerpig did a great video on the Terrible-14 Shitmata)
Issue:The Russians use Automatic Loaders instead of Manual which may sound like a good thing but this makes it have a higher chance of getting the ammunition on fire.Also,it was found that a lot of T14’s were controlled by complete idiots and there are very few compared to the M1 Abrams having a manual loader,explosion door,and much greater numbers.
Isn't the Abrams the one controlled by absolute idiots?
The main issue with the abrams is that they Barely can last against a HEAT or AP or an RPG as well.
@@GuywithabadenglishDepends which area it is hit.Also the US military doesn’t have idiots as tank crews,that’s Russian tank crews.For comparison,a Russian soldier was putting up a landmine sign using a landmine whilst another Russian soldier was recording next to it.
@@Tissueroll011 No, tanks have different hit areas but they still have armor, also Russian education for tank crews is 10x smarter than the US tank crews, as an example:
An U.S soldier literally shot their own tank using the same tank, and the actual enemies did nothing exept recording.
Both tanks were destroyed and 2 soldiers were captured.
So the actual idiots are the US tank crews, especially since they have more incidents of friendly fire and don't pretend the US also failed to set landmines, since there's a video of their own tanks Ramming into enemy landmines as if they didn't just watch one of their tanks being destroyed.
Plus, the US tank Crews barely knows how to use their own equipments, there's literally a tank who ate shit because he dosen't know how to back down, so they all died by an RPG.
@@Guywithabadenglish ERA counters both AP and HEAT, and rpg's are HEAT rounds compressed into a fire arm
T14 armata
Speed
Lighter
Range
Weak armor
Cheaper
M1 Abrams
Armor
Weapons
Expensive
Fire power
See the difference
Belive to me maneuverability better then heavy armor
It uses an almost 70 year old engine. Doubt it's faster considering it weighs 1 ton
the t14 can even pen a t55 for the cold war
Reliability Abrams
Always gets engine smoke easy to find
@America I'm not a soldier so yeah. Due to gas turbine it gets hot easily and it will spit some smoke it would be easily visible for enemy atgm and also if it got broken the meintenance cost would be so high unlike the German leopard 2
@America ruclips.net/user/shortsVH_kkqqrLTo?feature=share here is the sources
@America German engine are actually good for the Abrams but they didn't get one for some reason
@America it also depends on the crew if they are good or not
Sources : trust me bro
Mind comparing Abram x to t 14?
If you watch the video "Why T-14 Armata SUCKS!" by some American propagandist, you'll learn that Abrams X (which is just a technology test bed by the way) has all the 'problems' that the T-14 Armata has.
@@definitelyfrank9341 it’s newer technology and it’s prototype mostly but man don’t come here talking about things that have nothing to do with this comment
@@smartcraft1207 I'm practically giving the answer you'd get from a AbramsX vs T-14 video.
@@definitelyfrank9341 So both are just the prototypes too early to see in combat. That makes them perfect to compare...
(not 22 hand-made Armata against Abrams with 10 000 units)
@@definitelyfrank9341 that guy who made it is a brit my guy
The M1 Abrams A2 destroyed t-14 in the real life
Russian propaganda be like
Cringe
@@Wayfarer.731 lol
Go to school bro. Armada is much more better but it’s new, so there isn’t many t-14. Cringe
Bro was watching American news, 1000 % truth
@@CucumberUtka how do you know it’s never been used in combat?
is this a pro Z person the T 14 sucks and the M1A2 is stronger has more range
Don't cry bro, it's okey
Team M1A2 abrams. Team T-14 armata.
👇 👇
M1A2 Abrams!
Abrams w negative diff
Not really
@@Guywithabadenglish yes reallx
@@Thomas_aap_sigma_edits Nah really
Bruh it depends is it the exported one?
ה-t-14 הוא טנק קרב מודרני טוב, האמת שהוא מתעלה על ה-M1A2 אברמס, אבל מה אם אני אגיד לכם שיש גרסה מודרנית וקטלנית יותר, M1A2 SEPV3 ABRAMS, אבל לרוסיה יש גם אחרת בעניין הזה, ה-T-90M המודרני🇺🇸🇷🇺
the older the better buckaroo
Abrams has better guns, better armor, better sights, better engine, better ammunition, and actually can be produced
Weakspots of t14: The roof front hull plate or as in driver sight. Turrey of t14 is weakness because if you aim at the lower front turret plate you will destroy the t14, Destroying the turret ring that goes around, and have a chance to hit the ammo. Lasty, The last weakness of the t14 is hull sides, Even tho theres era giant bricks its still a weakspot, The era giant bricks are supposed to stop atgms and heats from penetrating the sides, unlike apfsds, so it will be destroyed in 1 shot on the side of the hull
is the abrams frontal plate thicker than the armatas lower plate that is protecting the crew.
This is satire, I refuse to believe someone thinks the t14 is good
exists - Abrams
does not exist - T-14 Armata
You'd forgot about these.
Experience
Fire power
Main weapon
Total damages
Combat
Safety
Total weapons
Designed
Handles
Numbers
Piercing powers
Visibility
Variants
Fear
Reliability
Smaller
Type of armours
More power
T14
More damage t14
Weapon power t14
@@gaddielsantillan5247 Just because its 5mm higher dosent mean that shit matters on a tank on tank fight, you need to look for crew exp tank mobility APS systems and other stuff other than armor and firepower (abrams also wins in both of that)
Real@@GlopPlopJop
@@doglgo7062 also Abrams and leopard have better comp armor, and better pen + better era pen performance and better optics + blowouts
@@GlopPlopJop rip russian bias kids
The t-14 armada has such good stealth technology that no one has ever spotted it on a battlefield
The t14 broke down at a parade
Numbers: Abrams. Gun: Abrams: Crew survivability: Abrams. Optics: Abrams. Protection: Abrams. Actual Functionality: Abrams. Winner? The tank that actually EXISTS: Abrams.
Nah no way bro said this T-14 better than the abrams
Source: trust me
The T-14 is for show, and it's really just a proof of concept right now. it's not being used or manufactured. The Russian Federation just doesn't have spending budget to produce them in mass. The T-90 is still their main battle tank. The T-90 is easier to produce and it's half the price. Don't let anyone tell you the T-90 is being replaced yet, it's a beast all on it's own.
The M1A2 Abrams cost 10 million to manufacturer. There is a reason for that too. It's a very advanced tank, and proven design. It's also the only tank in service by the US. The Russians have T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s in service.
Man, can you make M1A2 SEP V3 VS T-90M?
usable in real battle:
Armata: 0- M1A2: 1
And you telling me the weakest tank in Russia VS a M1 legendary tank?
weakest tank in Russia is T-72 but even M60 can beat T-14
Cheaper = not very good components
Bros getting tank knowledge from war thunder 💀
he's actually brainwashed by Russian propaganda
POV: Russian tank, armour, and infantry armour-cardboard💀
Broken down while cruising in a parade in red square:
T-14 Armata: 5
Abrams is a mass produced tank that is known for its combat achievement in many conflicts. Currently, the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are using the M1A2 Abrams
So what? Russia, Syria and India are currently using the T-14 Armata
@@Guywithabadenglish since when syria and india use armata?
@@Guywithabadenglishsource??
Abrams is battle proven and reliable than the armata
Speed - Armatta
Firepower - Abrams
Armor - Abrams
Only used for parades - Armatta
Never seen combat or used - Armatta
Veteran - Abrams
Have been used in combat - Abrams
Lighter - Tide
So abrams wins, stop thinking that the armatta can do anything, it can't do shit against landmines, fighter jets, bomber drones, Attack Helicopter 2 hits by a javelin
1. Armatta is a new tank, so Russia don’t have many of them. 2. Bro, do you really think that in 1vs1 abrams will win? T-14 has better armor, better speed, has uninhabited
tank tower, has better caliber (abrams105mm Armatta125mm), has very good protected crew module. Yes t-14 is bigger, but it has uninhabitable tower so that doesn’t really matter.
P.S. Why am I answering this types of comments? There is so many I can’t answer all of them. What am I doing with my life?
@@CucumberUtkaall you said is cap.
1. Armatta isn't even used in war.
2. T-14 has shit armor, and if Abrams hits the tower, T-14 will be unable to shoot, and all it needs for Abrams is to fire into the very front where all 3 crew memebers are at T-14. Abrams also has a better and stronger calliber (120 millimeter against 115 mm Armatta), it also is way more powerful. Abrams is way larger and it's one of the largest tanks today, while T-14 is the size of T-72 which is the worst tank in Russia and is smaller than all NATO tanks. Abrams negs
@@Melkorsolostheverse 1. When I said that armada is used in the war?
2. Bro.. armatta has 125 mm gun and Abraham’s 120mm, you can see it on the internet.
3. Even more cringy. Shit armour? T-14 has over 1000mm armor even in sides of tank. The abraams has worse armour than armatta.
4. When I said that “that doesn’t really matter” maybe you are right, but CANT penetrate crew module. It has very big armor.
5. Armatta is bigger than abrams, and bigger than t72. Smaller tanks with same guns as the big ones is better.
6. T72 isn’t the worst tank. It’s just old and there are less and less t72 in Russian army. Russian OBT is t90.
All what you said is CAP and LIE. Who even told you that? 2 is the most cringest text that I’ve ever seen.
My source is ministry of defense is Russia.
If I had to choose between the t-14 and the M1A2 Abrams. I'm taking the Abrams every damn day of the week.
Probably because you know one of the two of them works
Time and time again it has been proven that quality reigns supreme over quantity in the modern battlefield dealing with armored units like the Abrams. The T-14 may be cheaper but I don’t believe that it has enough survivability to last in modern warfare for more than 2 skirmishes.
the cope is strong with this one
Are made: abrams more than 2000 tanks, t14 armata 20 tanks only for show
there are 9000 Abrams
One of em actually has combat experience, while the other has experience on how to look good in a parade
But it breaks on it anyway
In production? nah t-14
The T-14 tank is the very first modern tank in the world, because everyone only improved the old tanks, and did not make modern ones.
+30,000 Russian social credits💪⚒️
Technological advantage: Abrams
Battle proven: Abrams
Survivability: Abrams
Accuracy: Abrams
APS: Abrams