Correction, the M1 Abrams has a zoom of x13 optically, and can digitally zoom into that picture by 50x, thanks to @TheForklifter for correcting this mistake, and everyone else who pointed this out to me, that was my mistake, whoops! If you'd like to watch my video on the M1 Abrams specifically, click here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oct2eKSkz9LadJ8.htmlsi=yI9U5qo1KhjO87Nf Thanks for watching! :)

T-14 is the first tank equipped with invisible cloak, which no one can find it on battlefield or parade since 2023. 😁

I think the best quote I've seen about the Armata has been "is it as good as the Russians claim? It doesn't matter, there will never be enough to matter"

First we had bubble bath in SU-57 and now we have a toilet in T-14, it seems they really care about the crew and the pilots

"Named so because there's only 14 of them." I thought I'd comment it before everyone else does.

A video on the Leclerc would be very interesting.

The Abrams doesnt have x50 magnification, it has x13 optical zoom max with the ability to digitally zoom in at x25 and x50. Like zooming into a picture on a phone.

The Armatas 15 missing tons is probably the armour plating the oligarchs sold on the black market?

I clicked on this and immediately got ptsd flashbacks from the Lazerpig drama. And I’m just 1 second in.

Would love to see a video on the KAI KF-21 Boramae, F-15, Abrams, Japan's Type 10, K2 Black Panther and China's Type 99. Loving these video's.

Keep up the grind bro.. your videos are top notch

Why is the T-14 turret always rotating, though? :P

I feel like the t-14 very much didn't account for drone guided arty since now a 155 would rip all its unarmored places (ie turret) to pieces making it very easily combat ineffective.

“Yes, we’ve decided to change the design of our MBT so it doesn’t launch its crew into the upper ionosphere within the first few seconds of impact from enemy fire. We expect this to be something of an improvement. Now our main issue is when enemy fire hits the wastewater disposal system, causing the toilet and all its contents to explode, making the crew WANT to die”.

For the mobility thing you kind of glossed over something, it’s as fast as the challenger 2. Which isn’t special on its own until you realise that thing’s 20 tonnes heavier

Pretty good video, the unbiased outlook is always nice. Do you plan on doing vids on the Armor and Air of the JSDF in future?

Now, if only they can figure out how to stop the turret from from spinning around 360 degrees every time we see it driving on a road...

I really appreciate the attention to the engine controversy, putting a lot of points out there I don’t think were previously mentioned

"If this is so, then it ought to be a great tank. If that is so, then it ought to be a great tank", yet the money is being spent on trying to modernize Soviet stuff. I suspect too many "this" and "that" aren't so and what we have is a country that doesn't have the design and manufacturing capabilities to free itself of its Soviet legacy.

In the early 200’s a Russian general came out to say the T-95 project never existed as an actual tank project, and was instead a T-80 with a better turret

Its not a copy of the SLA 16. It is a design similar to it, with an X configuration. Thats a logic hinted by the an infamous british person. Based on that logic modern engines are pretty much the same engine as the 1st ones. Edit: I kind of consider the unmanned turret a weakness. Its enough for one thing to fail to render the tank unfuctional. The legacy soviet tanks could still be operated if the autoloader failed, but thats obviously impossible to do with the armata since there seems to be no way for someone to replace the autoloader in case its damaged or malfunctional. The casemate which houses the crew isnt going to protect well against a jack-in-the box, for that it needs a very thick capsule, with spall liner. The germans answered the ammo detonation with the dm53, which from what Ive heard can only reliably be ignited electrically, and its also quite resistant to secondary explosions, heat and spalling generated by an APFSDS penetration. (These are rumours i have heard). The possibly pressure generated by ammo detonation is also a potential danger to the crew, which should be addressed (V shaped design to redirect shockwave, the point facing the ammo, like an MRAPs) The whole crew operating a remote controlled turret is another weakness: once the optics are down, which seem to be in bad position, the tank is basically blind and is unable to return fire, as there are no direct line of sight back up sights either for the gunner or the commander. Let them mass-produce the tank, its an expensive failure, that will leave the west puzzled and possibly even afraid for a while. I consider it the modern day Maus tank, or a Jagdtiger, where something is overengineered and as such it is overpriced, and siphons away funds that could go somewhere else that could potentially be more dangerous. To solve issues they would have to move most of the optics to the roof of the tank, with new and very resistant housing, cause as it stands, obviously with undisclosed documents in mind, the optics are a major weakspot for our beloved Armata tank. One could argue that you cant reliably aim for it in a combat situation, but then one has to realise that these things are quite sensitive to pressure waves generated by chemical rounds, and since the optics are opened in combat they are less protected. It is not bullets they have to be resistant to, but say autogun fire (vehicle buttoning), and explosions that are far more powerful than back then in i dunno which war). The turret seems to be fairly unarmoured, seems. Obviously it is unmanned, and such its size was reduced and could still sport competent armour. The turret ring seems easy to hit, and the tank seems to have a massive shot trap, in between the hull and the turret, which is a problem considering that its in the center of tank, where we are trained to always aim our shots. Its a dog that possibly has a bigger bark than bite. Not saying we should underestimate it, but very glaring weaknesses. I am not surprised they didnt mass produce it yet, since the tank is too expensive for what it is, and is not simple enough.

The Arbrams sight is Optical to 10x and to the 50 times its digital zoom so it all gets pretty fuzzy

The toilet is actually really interesting to me When I was in we would bring empty ammo cans or in a pinch just use a helmet with a trash bag in it and chuck it out the hatch. I think that they discovered that the crew compartment of the tank is simply so small and there is nothing like the drivers cell where you can have a modicum of isolation to shit that they had to include something like this or crewman would simply leave the tank to shit outside

I like how at 11;20 you show the valve adjustment on a DAF MX engine at Euro 5 lol A truck engine ..Thoroughly enjoyed the video .Honest and genuine with no bias

Kaboda what happed to your older videos? Did KZfaq just deleted them?

The life support system on the T-14 is so good the development program has to use that themselves

Honestly I don't even understand tanks, I just click on T14 videos when they pop up to see if the creator has gotten swept up in the LazerPig/RedEffect drama 😂

14:00 Can the automatic gearbox be a factor in why its so difficult to pull it? My tractor has automatic gearbox and when its shut off its almost impossible to pull. And it doesnt even have tracks.

Amazing video, but just to point out the 50 times magnification on Abrams is digital, and the 12x zoom on T14 is optical, T14 can of course use digital zoom as well, but the quality is no longer garueented

Thank you for an intelligent, reasoned, and CALM assessment in what I know must have been a daunting project to undertake. While I am sure that reasonable people can disagree on some aspects of any analysis of this sort, yours struck me as an excellent place for intelligent discussion. This was a superb example of why I subscribed to your channel in the first place.

WW2 engine my ass, that claim would make every ICE engine a pre-WW1 design. Meanwhile the proposed abrams diesel engine sports the same layout at the 5TDF which is actually based on a wartime Jumo design but it's called Advanced Combat Engine and it's opposed pistons are innovative. Russians would probably build T-14 instead of restarting T-80 if they could produce all optical and digital equipment needed for this layout to work. Hell, just dropping in the same GTD-1250 and armor tech of 80BVM would already make it a great vehicle as the entire premise rests on shaving off 15 tons from the turret weight.

Love that opening quote, about a tank that probably exists in single digit numbers. I think we've seen 8? So, 8.

Did some of the videos get deleted from the channel?

9:39 Keep in mind that 50x magnification you mentioned on the Abrams is Digital Zoom, whereas the 12x you mentioned on the T-14 is referring to the optical zoom. The resolution does not scale with digital zoom.

One problem I notice in a lot of videos like this is how people misunderstand that an engine "created in WWII" doesn't mean much. Many engine designs/models started 30 or 40+ years ago for many vehicles. The difference is they've been updated and changed over the years, barely resembling their original version. Now obviously Russia doesn't invest as much improving the engine designs as others, but still even their oldest designed engines are still vastly different from their initial designs by now.

Yeah Anything is a toilet if you want it bad enough

I saw a article stating Russia is building 100 tanks a month. But they are not t14s. Enough said.

I feel like the largest factor proving the X-12 isn’t a “copy” of Porsche’s design is Ferdinand was famous for favoring air cooled designs despite the German Military requesting a water cooled engine. I’d love to hear someone explain how an air cooled cylinder and head are just like the water cooled versions. Laughable.

On the topic of T-14 breaking down. Would it be possible for the engine to get stuck in a way that acted as breaks? I can t believe they couldn't fix an accidentaly engaged break and had to try and tow it. Because when you accidentaly engaged the breaks the solution is to intentionally disengage them.

14:13 In a lot of heavy vehicles you simply cannot disengage the parking brake of the vehicle is off and from the looks of it, that vehicle is turned off. It probably had a different issue that had cause the vehicle to be turned off either intentionally by the crew or not and they simply forgot or were unable to disengage the brakes before recovery is initiated.

Does anybody know why the compression ratio is so low on the 14 engine. 11:1

the 152mm canon one wasnt that called the Object 292? or is that just a similar one?

Thanks for your fabulous work, Kaboda !

On the subject of the engine, I'd add the story of the jaguar xk v12 engine. It was produced in some form from the early 50s through to the late 90s through several different variants, the earliest prototype being a dual overhead cam engine with a massive displacement of seven and a quarter litres, a production version of five point three litres and single overhead cam, a "high efficiency" version which upped the compression ratio to 12.5:1 and changed the cylinder head geometry. A final version with a displacement of six litres was produced for a few years. The engine changed drastically over its life, but rather ironically the 5.3 litre variants were closest to the "original" as the engine was closely based on the mechanical design of the standard motor company's two and a half litre straight six, the design of which jaguar had inherited, the CEO sir William Lyons spending much of his early career tuning and modifying them. The V12 mounted in such vehicles as the XJ12, the E-type MK3 and the XJS was not the straight six developed in the 40s. It shared no mechanical components, it was however fundamentally linked. Changing things like displacement, bore, stroke and compression ratio are not a smoking gun when it comes to saying two engines are related or unrelated. I can't sit here and say they are but In my personal opinion and experience with various petrol and diesel engines, you don't build an X shaped engine if you don't have to. More connecting rods per crank pin means longer spans between main bearings putting more strain and fatigue on the crank shaft. the and to make matters work the clearances between those con rods means more space for oil to sleep through, bleeding off oil pressure, making them prone to wear and catastrophic failure. They make some sense as pumping engines or as electrical generators with very constant loads, which minimises the stresses experienced, and the layout does make them quite compact, but using one in a direct drive application like this seems wrong to me, and smacks of not having a better option. I'm no expert. These are my thoughts as someone with a keen interest and some degree of experience with a range of antiquated engines. And to any that read this in it's entirety. Why? You've got better things to do. Go do it.

A toilet ? Like inside ? Musst be fun useing the tank after a use of that one 😅

I'm honestly pleasantly surprised how unbiased your break down of this vehicle was. Your channel has really grown since I've watched your Su-57 video i must say. I think due to having a smaller defense budget and sadly corruption it may be a long time if ever before we see the beauty on the battlefield.

A tank so devistating, that putting it into production would cripple the Russian economy 😂

I think that T-14 Armata was just testing platform from my opinion, versions of T-90M Proboj-3 have almost the same equipment, usable in modern warfare without one used for showoffs and else.

Very nice video of T-14. Great time to upload after the whole fiasco a few months ago 😅

O boy ready for round 2 in the KZfaqr t14 spat

T95 was a flim-flam tank, a paper exercise, a ghost tank.

I feel like a built-in toilet is pretty god damn smart.

Good video. In conclusion is it good, as you mentioned on paper it’s promising. Is it as good as the Russian’s claim? Well if we look at their claims about other existing weapon systems probably not. With what is known it already has an inferior fire control system to modern Western tanks. Its reactive armor is the same as what’s on the latest versions of the T90 currently being destroyed in Ukraine. Its active protection system even if it works well looks it is limited in its engagement envelope based just on the static position of the launchers and offers no top attack protection. Also with complete reliance on sensors and cameras for the crews view of the battlefield, a hit to the turret and those sensors could possibly more easily result in a mobility kill even if the tank isn’t outright destroyed.

5:11 Oh, _THAT_ discussion.

Damn that thing looks cool! A shame it effectively does not exist.

Is this a re upload from 2018?

I find it a bit strange that the west blocks internet from outside, and the Russians are not yet gave the specifics of this tank, but non of that is important because this guys know it, yeah right.

What do u think of the "new altay tank" or the tfx jet, which is now named kaan for the turkish Air Force? Can u please make videos on both or on one of these subjects

This needs more views

On the modern battlefield, the tank plays a much more limited (yet important) role. It seems the T-14 was designed for the previous generation warfare.

I love the intellectual honesty of just not knowing and trying to proclaim your right. While also not being a Tankie or Tankie adjacent and ignoring all the flaws. Glad I love this channel.

Another wonderful video! Great to see another piece of unbiased and accurate content from you! Keep up the good work mate!

The fact it is larger than an Abrams with an unmanned turret but still twenty tonnes lighter should be terrifying to any Russian tanker. The biggest advantage Soviet designs had over their NATO opponents was having one less crewman allowed them to have a smaller tank. This was a significant factor in their design as having a smaller surface area to protect meant each tonne of armour covered significantly more. Unless we make believe Russia has developed some miraculous new armour materials decades more advanced than every other nation despite all their known armour designs being knockoffs of cold war era NATO tech then we have to assume the T14 is severely under armoured and probably less protected than even base model T72's.

''Highly advanced optics'' *(that are exported from western countries, oops)*

T14 the FIRST Main Battle Tank to be available with credit on AliExpress.

Are we WRONG about the inability of Russia to manufacture a reliable machine in large scale? Also turret armor seem to be thinner than the T-90 itself.

what we know about armata so far is what wikipedia tells us

I think the way they executed the ammunition placement is extremely good ngl. In western tanks the ammunition isn't actually that safe itself as its almost external, it's just safer for the crew when hit. If the ammunition is in the bottom of the hull it is a lot less likely to be hit as it's litterally protected by the entire tank. In both vehicles the crew will survive but the tank will get destroyed or damaged. Just in the t14, the ammo is less likely to be hit. Not sure on flammable hydraulic fluid though. Which is generally speaking extremely dangerous for tanks based off of Ukraine footage.

A tank so good it has never been seen again.

😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳 Holy Sh1t!!!! a Toilet??!!! I remember a Soviet Tanker said in WW2: "Our tanks were never comfortable. Why should it be? We are are at war! If we want comfort, we go and take a vacation. to a beach resort."

Starting off a tank video with a quote from Stalin is a real good way to let every person who click on it to not waste listening to what this person is saying.

Whats crazy is this tank has hydraulic sealed hatches so if the its hit in a certain way u can get stuck in the thing

regarding the ammo carousel being easy to set off, I think there's merit to the claim that it's not so much a problem with the carousel itself, but the additional rounds placed all around the crew compartment. The carousel itself sits fairly low and flat and doesn't overlap that much with where tanks tend to be hit (higher up). Another reason I tend to believe this is the case is the sharp drop in footages of Russian tanks experience ammo det. - it's easy to stop cramming tanks with shells to the brim, it's incredulous to change the carousel somehow to make it not explode

3:45 we have seen western tanks pop their turrets too, its not exclusive to older soviet desings.

I think u should do a run down of the state of boxer and ajax

The Russians couldn’t keep the systems in their navies flagship in proper working order and had it blown up by a country with no navy. Hard to believe they have the ability to create all of the new gizmos needed to make this tank equivalent to other modern tanks.

the ultimate question is NOT about “this feature, that feature is better” or not. THE ULTIMATE QUESTION: WHERE IS IT?

Fucking impressive if a ww2 engine can do 90 kmh and 32 kmh reverse speed

Armata Engine mentioned..... The drunk pig noises are coming out my walls again.......

Just because parts are different doesnt mean there isnt a trail of designs based off the sla that changed overtime to eventually develop into this engine, so yes it could be both different and still a decent of that engine

I thought Napoleon was credited with the quantity is a quality quote. Is it one of those sayings that is credited to a bunch of different people?

I hope hope you don’t get pulled in to the lazer pig t14 drama 😂😂😂

'QuAnTiTy HaS a QuAlITy Of It'S oWn.' Fucking hate that quote

You know that toilet is made with the highest of quality 😂😂😂

For a parade tank I guess the T-14 beats the Bob Semple...maybe.

We need to summon LazerPig and RedEffect here. More drama coming.

I guess everyone in the comments is a military expert now and are definitely not bias and are definitely not listening to propaganda of any kind, because what ever you listen to is not propaganda because your smart

The only thing the T14 performs excellent is turning its turret 😂🤣

I wish people would stop claiming that this is a revolutionary tank. It’s not. It’s an evolution of older designs. If they decide to use the 152mm gun, they will need an entirely new turret as this turret can’t fit that gun or ammo. The carousel can’t fit the larger ammo either. So it’s not just a matter of using a much bigger gun, it’s a major redesign of the entire tank, including compensating for the greater weight. With the much bigger rounds, how many will it be able to carry? It’s more complicated than people may think. The T-95, designed to mount that big gun, was a much bigger, heavy tank, that cost too much to even think about manufacturing. Then the question is whether the T-14, as is, costs too much to manufacture, since it’s much more expensive than any of their current models, possibly twice what the T90M costs.

In 20 years of production, they managed to produce a handful. It really doesn’t matter if it’s the best tank ever(it’s far from it) they can’t make them quickly, they haven’t got the money or the expertise. With sanctions they can’t get the parts that they can’t make at all. So no democracies have nothing to worry about , at all. We should also consider, that Russia lies like a cheap rug about its weapons capabilities and they have lost 100’s of thousands of troops and equipment in Ukraine, so far.

To be honest, Russians can do the optic parts. During Soviet union, they made very high quality binoculars and camera lenses. I feel like the optics aren't the problem, but the imaging system is.

And we watched one get punted by a Bradley like this is a world of tanks lobby 🤣

T 14 is a stealth tank... Hmmm...thats why we havent seen it yet anywhere....till now

I've also heard that the arena systems on the Armata aren't even automated. Meaning the crew has to manually activate them to counter incoming missiles. Though I haven't fact checked this.

Adult diapers in a biohazard suit and VR helmet would be better.

Why is the turret always spinning😵‍💫

Do T-90 next

The challanger uses a heavilly modified and modernized ww1 engine (is based on it) fyi. The armatas engine is in the same boat it is of the same design as a certain ww2 engine but it has been revised and modernised to fit modern standarts and needs. The germans have been using the same design for about 40 or so years with barely any changes.

T 14 makes a great helicopter lol

what about the fact that the turret is only lightly armoured, so even tho the crews chances of survival are good, the chances of the turret exploding are probably even higher because of the lightly armoured turret. maybe the side armor behind the crew compartment is also meh. probably the only well protected area is the crew compartment.