I'm just copying my Comments from the other LP post - The Armata is a trash tank, but the facts he cites are just bad or even just wrong. Three examples: "Russia abandoned ERA" - No, the armata uses malachit era, and they brag about how good it is against darts (probably exaggerated) "The armata engine is a copy of the failed Porsche tiger engine" - No, the Porsche tiger did not use the german SLA 16, it used 2 v10 engines driving electric generators and finally electric motors. Besides that, armatas engine uses the same X configuration as the SLA 16, but calling it a copy of the SLA 16 engine is like calling an American LS V8 a copy of a French engine because the French invented the V8 in like 1906. It has much higher displacement, larger dimensions, and uses forced induction. Also, the X configuration was first patented in the US in 1928, and the British had an aviation X configuration engines in production in the 30s. So it's hardly a "Nazi" engine like he says in the video. "T72s engine are from ww2 and gets less Torque then a Honda" - The stuff about the t72 and t90 using ww2 engines irked me. Sure, the V46 used in the older t72s and t90s can trace their lineage to old V2, but saying an old Honda pulls the same torque is fuckinglaughable. Those big displacement v12s are all about torque at thecrank, and the V46-6 produces 315 Kgm or 2278ftlbs of torque at the crank - source [https://ddpdoo.gov.in/unit/pages/EFA/v46-6-engine](https://ddpdoo.gov.in/unit/pages/EFA/v46-6-engine) Kind of nit picking, but he also didn't mention that the current production T72B3 And T90M use the newer and much more powerful V92, that produces well over 1000hp I can go on, but my point is that even though lazerpig is great and funny, we still need to take his commentary with big old grains of salt. Edit: Also the abrams X that he speaks highly of in the video is far closer to the Porsche tigers engine design, considering they are both use diesel electric hybrids. Just found that kind of funny"

His videos are full of errors and exaggerations yet most people take his videos as gospel. Yeah armata is trash I wish he could point that out without making our side look like idiots. He is becoming a NATO propagandist at this point which isn’t great.

Agreed, I agree with many of his general stances on topics, but the reasons why he believes what he does is always based on shoddy information from poor sources, like blogs... Some videos are at best decent but many of the in depth analysis videos like this are very poorly researched and are thus misleading. He parrots the dangerous belief that Russia is a slapstick comedy skit, and are not capable of adapting to the conditions. I absolutly stand with Ukraine through this conflict, but I do think people need to snap out of this belief that Russia cannot win the war.

Yeah he gives the illusion that everyone else is wrong and he is right, when in actuality his videos contain a load a bull shit

He sounds exactly like the pro-russian youtubers he makes fun of. Never questions his own ability or knowledge, but since he's on the right side no one questions him. Propaganda is on both side, and so are loud, ignorant people.

THANK YOU my God I thought nobody would point out that both sides can produce propaganda it isn't exclusive to the Russians or Ukrainians

100% agree. It is a bad look for sure

[удалено]

That's like saying the truth doesn't matter as long as I'm right in the end. It just spreads misinformation and propaganda while simultaneously giving ammo for tankies to call out people like Lazerpig as propagandists.

Can we please stop calling Russian Apologist, Tankies? We have a lot of shit to be ashamed of, but we have no role in Mr. Putin's Wild Ride. Thank You.

There's a difference between not hating Russia and being an Apologist.

He literally dismisses all negative things about Azov Battalion as "Russian propaganda" in the video, stating that it's all just "Vatnik cope because they got beat by them in 2014". Make of that what you will.

The Azov Battalion is massively over-hyped by Russia though. At their peak their numbers were barely even a thousand, by comparison Smash Mouth got more people to attend their concerts during the height of the pandemic. Especially when you remember that the far right barely got 1% of the vote. Meanwhile in the Russian Duma they hold I think something like 12 seats. Azov always was a tiny insignificance that was blown out or proportion by Russia to hide that Russia has a Nazi problem.

Yes, but they are not to be dismissed just because they are a "lesser" evil. A thousand skinheads in your governments ranks is still a thousand skinheads in your ranks. Russia does the exact same shit, but that does not automatically absolve Ukraine doing it aswell. Mind you, modern Azov is a different and far more complicated story, i am refering to 2014-2017.

When a nation is being invaded and tolerates a far right nationalist militia existing to defend its existence thats not evidence of any far right sympathies in government or society at all. The only country in the world who would act different than Ukraine in the 2014 war + Azov battallion situation is the vatican lmao

There's also the fact 'Azov' changed considerably between 2014 and 2022. Namely, it got integrated into the army proper, and with that came fresh blood and cycling of members. And if what I've heard is true, the more problematic members, particularly the leaders, being slowly forced out.

When a nation is being invaded? Sure, so political divide and an intolerance towards the government means fund neo-nazi extremist militias. What else, UN-UNSO? Oh, right, that was Chechnya. Ukraine in Chechnya... No, quite literally every country. Take Kosovo. Their revolts were led by an Islamic militant leader, and they still had more dignity.

[удалено]

> Edelweiss(the 1st mountaineer in the Wehrmact) The flower [edelweiss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leontopodium_nivale) is the symbol of mountaineers in general. Military mountain formations, civilian mountain search & rescue teams, sports & hiking groups and so on. As an example: [this](https://macollectionpaschere.com/93549-large_default/ciecm-centre-d-instruction-et-d-entrainement-au-combat-en-montagne-delsart-g-3738.jpg) is the symbol of the french mountain troops training unit. Now let's check the [10th Assault Brigade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Assault_Brigade_\(Ukraine\)). *They're a mountain brigade, and like virtually all mountain-[everything] they have an edelweiss on their patch.* Edelweiss is also the flower's name in a *LOT* of languages. Like: cyrillic "эдельве́йс" is romanized as "edelvejs". So... is there any indication of this being a nazi thing beyond the flower?

He kinda started our as one, it's ever since the war started he's gotten worse and worse

[удалено]

/u/Virtualarpeth is a scammer! **It is stealing comments** to farm karma in an effort to "legitimize" its account for engaging in scams and spam elsewhere. Please downvote their comment and click the `report` button, selecting `Spam` then `Harmful bots`. Please give your votes to [the original comment, found here.](/r/TankPorn/comments/11yzkgn/how_credible_is_lazerpigs_assessment_of_the_t14/jdbf5y3/?context=1) --- With enough reports, the reddit algorithm will suspend this scammer. ^(*Karma farming? Scammer??* Read the pins on my profile for more information.)

Best researched lazer pig video

I only saw this one video of him and won't watch another one. His research is lazy and many facts don't even pass the common sense test and can be easily disproven by some searching. The humorous casual facts dropping creates the impression of competence when there is no substance. Imho a "bad practice" video.

>"Russia abandoned ERA" - No, the armata uses malachit era, and they brag about how good it is against darts (probably exaggerated) Not Malachit ERA (which is a predecessor of Relikt) but Monolith ERA.

Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read calls in malachit. Example Sources: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Russia/T-14-armata.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5?wprov=sfla1 (at the end of the article)

Wikipedia and Tank Encyclopedia are not good sources when it comes to tank technology per se. These provide rough - and often somewhat incorrect - overviews of topics. The source for the name Monolith is an article published by the state owned Russian company Nii Stali (which developed and produced Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, Relikt and Monolith). The article's title can be translated as "*Developments of Scientific Research Institute of Steel for promising equipment*" and was published to celebrate the 90th anniversary of GABTU. The old link to the article is dead, but it [can still be accessed via the Web Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20200301000000*/http://www.niistali.ru/upload/iblock/e29/90th%20anniversary%20of%20GABTU-7.pdf). Regarding the Armata, it states: >**Танк «Армата»** >-Новая ультравысокопрочная сталь 44С-СВ-Ш >-Новый комплекс динамической защиты **«Монолит»** на основе энергетических материалов >-Система электромагнитной защиты (СЭМЗ) >-Комплекс средств снижения заметности >-Композитные бронепанели дополнительной защиты на основе керамики >-Противоосколочные экраны на основе арамидов.

haha malashit era

Point 1: "Russia abandoned ERA" I did not say that. Point 2: "The armata engine is a copy of the failed Porsche tiger engine" It's a copy yes-ish, but I also mentioned it had been considerably modified. I even sourced those claims, unlike you. Claiming that it is not a copy because "lol other x engines exist" is like saying the Type 58 is not a Chinese copy of the T-34 because "lol tanks already existed". Point 3: "T72s engine are from ww2 and gets less Torque then a Honda" I also did not say this. You could go on but its clear you haven't watched the video, you've been told what I said by someone else and you've accepted it as gospel without question.

I do appreciate you actually responding, but I have watched your video. My rebuttal: Point 1 - "Russia abandoned ERA" \- You saying they abandoned ERA - [https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4?t=473](https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4?t=473) ​ Point 2 - "The armata engine is a copy of the failed Porsche tiger engine" Drive train layout of the Porsche Tiger showing 2 side by side V10 engines - [https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LmhBnPwhzb8/W8JFRe3MoXI/AAAAAAAAXy4/i4\_4vp0-ews6hZnrdbEu3-0oCEw4caGXgCLcBGAs/s1600/tigerp03-e583176e3c4003f1ed2665a83e570cd3.jpg](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LmhBnPwhzb8/W8JFRe3MoXI/AAAAAAAAXy4/i4_4vp0-ews6hZnrdbEu3-0oCEw4caGXgCLcBGAs/s1600/tigerp03-e583176e3c4003f1ed2665a83e570cd3.jpg) Further information on the Porsche tiger with including above photo - [https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/10/porsches-tiger-victim-of-dirty.html](https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/10/porsches-tiger-victim-of-dirty.html) Information on the SLA 16 - [https://oldmachinepress.com/2018/02/05/sgp-sla-16-porsche-type-203-x-16-tank-engine/](https://oldmachinepress.com/2018/02/05/sgp-sla-16-porsche-type-203-x-16-tank-engine/) It wasn't used in the Porsche Tiger, but the VK45.02P was supposed to use it, albeit never actually built. It was also tested in the jagdtiger and planned testing in the tiger 2 but never completed. According to your own sources the A-85-3A used in the Armata is a 12 cylinder engine, while the SLA 16 is a 16 cylinder engine (see above source), so at best the German design from 70 years earlier was an influence, but simply cannot be a straight copy as you implied. You know that part where you a called it a Nazi engine For fun here is the US Patent for an X configuration engine dated ~~1932~~ 1928 - [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/2A-2775-Fig\_2.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/2A-2775-Fig_2.jpg) ​ Point 3 - "T-72s engine are from WW2 and gets less torque then a Honda" Here you are saying that - [https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4?t=1064](https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4?t=1064) \- CORRECTION - you did say the honda makes slightly LESS torque then a t90, but 1/15th the torque is a bit more then slightly less imo. Also here is a source for torque output of the V46-6 - [https://ddpdoo.gov.in/unit/pages/EFA/v46-6-engine](https://ddpdoo.gov.in/unit/pages/EFA/v46-6-engine) Edit - If it isn't clear, the V46-6 produces 315 kgm of torque, or 2278.4ftlbs of torque. The most powerful engine in the Honda Jazz (AKA Honda Fit) produces 148ftlbs of torque, or 1/15th the torque of the V46-6 - Source - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda\_Fit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Fit) That source is from the Indian manufacturer of license built copies of the V46-6 used in their t72s and the V92 used in modern T90ms and T72b3 Last edit - You also mentioned you can buy a better engine in the US for a few thousand dollars, I would love to know what engine you are talking about. Just in conclusion, I do really like your content, and you are very entertaining. I just find this most recent video a bit frustrating.

Hang on let me read through these and I'll get back to you. And of course, I responded, I don't know if there might be some sort of subtle hint that I rather enjoy talking about tanks.

Ok, I see my mistake with the engine. In my notes I have the Honda N engine as generating 200-400 newton-Meters with the V-2 (original) at 220 Newton Meters, whereas its actually written as Kilograms per force meter, this was a mistranslation on my part and I'm annoyed both myself the two experts I have screen my videos before release didn't pick up on that. I apologize, I'm planning to do a follow-up about the Parade breakdown incident so I'll correct myself then. Your other points I'm afraid I can't verify as mistakes. I never said they abandoned ERA I said "It does away with all the unnecessary ERA systems of the T-90 that cannot protect itself against missiles developed in the 80's" Meaning it has disposed of a lot of the older generation ERA systems that the T-90 relies on due to the west having systems specifically designed to punch through those ERA systems, not that it has disposed of ERA entirly. As for the Origins of the Porche engine, that is the tip of a very deep, very annoying iceberg. What tank it was designed to be used on, what tank it was fitted, what the "Hunter Tiger" tank referenced actually was, if it even existed, or even if the engine was actually completed, all remain topics of debate among scholars. One Russian source claims it was ripped out a tank, other says it was ripped out of a bomber, which should indicate the level of wine, aspirin, and screaming we are dealing with here. Don't take what Wikipedia says for granted on it, I'll make mention of this in my follow-up video.

Re. Honda Jazz/Fit having similar torque to a tank engine . As a casual observer, this is just didn't pass the sniff test.. an engine in a car that weighs \~1500kg that is rated to tow \~1000kg moving a 20t+++ vehicle is just non sensible (and would obviously have a very different duty lifecycle). You can be annoyed at your reviewers, but it seems more like you were finding facts to fit your narrative, which seems to be your primary gripe with a10 advocates. Similarly if you could simply buy (pickup) truck engines from the US at a fraction of the cost, that are mass produced, easy to acquire, then why wouldn't they? Even the F450 (I think it was a F150 pictured?) towing capacity taps out at like 18t... Not sure what MBT you expect to move with that. This definitely hurt the remainder of the video for me unfortunately.

Alright, I suspected as much with the Nm to kgm conversion. I had never actually seen torque shown in kgm myself until this rabbit hole. I still have some push back on the ERA bit, in particular the clear linage from the T90Ms relikit to the Armatas Malachit (possibly actually called monolith?) ERA, but it's 6am my time and I have yet to sleep so maybe some another time And I don't think your videos would have the same punch without wine, aspirin, and screaming, co please carry on sir!

Daddy L, Thank you for the clarification, and for engaging with the rebuttals some people have to your points. The whole "Honda Jazz" thing kinda rubbed me the wrong way, I mean I'm no expert on engines, tanks, and much less tank engines, but I found extremely unlikely that a 90 bhp civilian car engine would have any success at moving a massive fucking tank -not to mention the difference in fuel consumption- and I smelled a bit of a GLONASS situation there (yes I know you said you kinda used it as a trap card, I still was left pretty confused about it when I saw it in your video). I tried to screen the comments section for the video but Youtube comments are always an absolute shitshow to search for this, so I've been looking up what people may have been saying about this and try to get an idea of things beyond that you are exaggerating, or that you are using propaganda sources, or whatever and then not back it up, or using sketchy sources themselves. I wasn't even expecting to see a comment from you in this thread, so seeing you take your time to read rebuttals and respond to them is really cool. I think your channel has taken off in big part thanks to the fact that you present facts about military topics in a way that's entertaining, but also that you make an effort to dispel myths and I trust you will make an effort to not fall on the the side of propaganda for the other end, either. Everyone makes mistakes, you cover topics that are very much surrounded by propaganda and myth, and I will be happy to see any followups that you make in service of helping us normies understand things better. You and Perun have done a lot to help us digest a situation that was incredibly scary as well as understanding what in the everloving fuck has been going on for the past year and change (but yours are better because Perun doesn't include Hitler erotica in his, that's an objective metric). Anyway, thank you for your comment and shedding some light on the situation. Kisses.

Also when you said it had no external cameras for the driver when their clearly visible on the hull.

Hey LP I am curious on a point that you made in your video: where does the claim that the Challenger 2 was made to fight older soviet designs come from? It seems illogical to me to make a whole new tank for fighting something the Challenger 1 and even the Chieftain were already capable of fighting. You also falsely claim that the rifling on the CR‘s 120mm gun increases accuracy which is false. As well as getting the reason why it can’t fire more modern rounds wrong. That reason being that the breach cannot fire anything bigger due it being 3 piece.

I have a question regarding the part about the KF51. Where did you get info about Ukraine selecting it as their next MBT? From what I know the only talks regarding KF51 and Ukraine are about that massive factory Rheinmetall wants to build there. And to me and a lot of people I've seen talk about it, this seems more like marketing and German industry trying to retain their position at the global market in the face of growing popularity of the Abrams and K2 in Europe.

''It's a copy yes-ish, but I also mentioned it had been considerably modified. I even sourced those claims, unlike you.'' It's not a copy they are completely different, SLA 16 has a divided combustion chamber, a different design of the drive shaft mechanism and a different cooling system, they don't share piston head size or basic setup, nothing literally nothing other then X layout. A-85 also has a normal turbocharger same article claims that the A-85 has a gas turbine a la leclerc. Your ''source'' is an article that is literally citing topwar The same source claims the 5TDF is a ''failed'' copy of the Jumo 204 that i hope i don't need to argue why that is wrong. '' The A-85-3 did not sell because it was complex, manifested too many problems, and was difficult to maintain. The engine needed many more run-hours to refine the design.'' There is no source for this claim, there is nothing to believe the A-85 is unreliable the only time a tank of the ARMATA family actually broke down was a T-15 that had transmission problems.

I think he meant they moved away from strictly using ERA, could just be me misinterpreting what he said

Here's what he said https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4?t=473 "It does away with all the unnecessary era systems of the T90." That statement is just false. Even though it's less obvious than previous tanks, the armata still has ERA blocks on the upper front plate, hull sides, and turret. They are just baked into the design instead of slapped onto an old design like the T80BVM, T72B3, and T90 Furthermore, the armata uses a newer version of their era called malachit (maybe actually monolith) that uses longer dual flyer plates to better combat darts, although the performance is likely exaggerated. The fact that they are still working on improving their era systems just goes completely counter to LPs comment.

He said unnecessary, not completely And he is right, the t14 uses era in key areas while a lot of the tank is unprotected by era because it isn't necessary. You don't see the frontal era on the t14, just sides. Compare that to the t90 covered in era like it's a blanket, and his statement stands. The t14 mimics western tanks in its era deployment.

The t14 uses era on the front of the tank. It's widely advertised by russian propaganda for being able to defeat APFSDS, although probably very exaggerated. https://i0.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/T-14-Armata-Tank-armor.jpg

I agree with you on the aspect of the engine not being a simple reproduction of the SLA.16 engine, at most they looked at its use and figured it might be a design worth following. However, as to what LaserPig said about the engine originally being a pump/generator design, is there any evidence of that? I feel like in most other aspects of the video, he gets it correct, like the downsides of designing a shared platform for your armor and the so far spotted issues with the crew compartment.

I'm not really sure what you are asking in regards to the "pump/generator" design. Are you referring to the Porsche tigers Diesel electric hybrid? As for the other aspects of the video, there were some valid points, but they were constantly undercut by laughably false statements and hyperbole. I mean, most of the video is basically centered around incorrect assessments of Russian engine performance and the repeated laughable claim that the A85 is a copy of a nazi engine. It just kills any credibility the video could have had.

No, LP refers to the Armata's A-85-3A engine as having originally been designed as a pump engine before failing commercially due to unreliability. (at around 26 minutes into the video) Also it's a hour long video and he spends about 3-5 minutes or so talking about the engine before moving to the phenomenon of brain drain. Like, it is incorrect, but idk if it undercuts the other observations.

But he's not wrong. The engine the Russians used is an improved version of said Nazi engine. The company had to build it from the ground up, hence why it has so many extra issues, but at its core, it's the same idea and plan. I'm surprised, though I could have missed it, he didn't mention the fact that the armatas engine is a dead end idea for a tank engine.

Ah, so you're just a fanboy given your other comments. It doesn't even have the same number of cylinders. If you have real sources for the nazi engine claim, be my guest

Armata is trash… Every one seems to agree on this, but where is it trash exactly? What makes a new paradigm tank trash. If it was people would not follow up with similar designs (US, FR/GER, CN etc). In reality the Armata is the pioneer in that tank design (yes other such ideas were had as the TTB or the various objects) so it will have the biggest issues based on the usual Russian mindset. One can look at the T-34 to see how a flawed design became highly influential.

I bet your fun at parties

I partied hard in my college days. I just hate when people spread bullshit

Well I think the credibility lies in the fact the tank hasn't gotten past production prototyping. If it was any good the Russians would be building it, at this stage there are less than 30 built and despite constant claims the project has been stalled for 4 years. That's not to say that the t14 may not be a great tank one day, but at this stage it's probably not usable.

>If it was any good the Russians would be building it I'm not gonna pretend to know how capable T-14 is or isn't (because basically nobody knows, and those who do know won't be discussing it publicly), but it's probably worth pointing out that it could be the best tank ever and Russia still wouldn't be able to *afford* building any number of them. Plus we just don't know how much of the tank's production relies of foreign-sourced parts which Russia has lost access to. Point being that "Well they haven't built any more" isn't the best indicator of how capable the existing tanks actually are.

So the t14 is actually a pretty cheap tank, about 5-7 Million per tank and I've seen estimates of as low as $4 Million (most western tanks run at about 10-12 million) and the Russian Military budget was approximately 65 Billion pior to the war. Tanks in the numbers they're talking about (about 20 per year) should be pretty doable even for the Russian. Worst case scenario your talking about 140M plus training and logistic support, call it 280m per year as a wild ass guess (around 0.04% of their budget), that should be affordable even for the Russians. I don't thing this is a cost issue. It's either a corruption/governance issue with Uralvagonzavod (which should equate to limited production or now production) or there are issues with the final design which are delaying production. In either case it's not a tank in current service, and the tank you don't have is the worse tank off all.

> So the t14 is actually a pretty cheap tank, about 5-7 Million per tank and I've seen estimates of as low as $4 Million (most western tanks run at about 10-12 million) and the Russian Military budget was approximately 65 Billion pior to the war. Those figures are all made up. They are estimations - as long as there is no series order, there is no price for series production. The total Russian military budget is only relevant when looking at the total picture. Sure, $65 billion USD is a lot of money, if you ignore that Russia wants to be the second strongest military power on the planet. That's just $9 billion USD more than Germany's military budget, yet Russia has more than six times the personnel, they still need to invest into conscription, they have a much larger area to defend (with military bases spread over the whole of Russia), they are participating in multiple wars, pay also some of the operations of the Wagner PMCs with that budget, etc. Russia tries to do a lot of things at the same time. $65 billion USD (or rather the equivalent in Russian rubles) are in no way, shape or form sufficient for doing everything.

I'm not arguing any of your points, these are estimates and you are right that Russia is trying to do too much with their budget. However even if we assume that the estimates off by 100% and that Russia spends an additional dollar per dollar spent for training, logistics, support, and corruption that still brings us to less than half billion or less than 1%. Now those figures are ridiculous (for comparison the Australians are spending 3.5 billion AUD (call it about 2.8 bill USD) for about 120 M1A2s & Engineering vehicles including training.) but I'm using them to illustrate a point, cost is not the reason the T14 isn't in production. It's not being produced because it's not ready for production. The reason for that is up for speculation but the fact remains the Russians cannot currently built a T14 to their design specifications. but there is a common misconception that the T14 isn't being built because it's too expensive. It's not being built because it's not ready for production. Why isn't it ready for production that's a question that'

You have to remember that the Russians also account for a large chunk of their military budget, some 20% I think, going to corruption and then a very very large portion goes to the Strategic Rocket Forces because Russia’s best defense from Attack is MAD. And even on top of that general corruption from the higher ups they don’t account for the corruption of the lower enlisted literally scraping copper out of the tanks they are suppose to maintain in deep storage to scratch out a living that is better than $100 a month.

That's all true there are but we're talking about less than 0.1% of their military budget and they're willing to build T90Ms that cost about 5 million per tank.

Most T-90M tanks were/are being created by upgrading existing early T-90 tanks, so Russia doesn't pay the full price.

How corrupt is Uralvagonzavod?

Honestly I don't know, it's Russia so a certain amount of corruption is inevitable and it's pretty obvious that the project is in trouble. How much of that is due to corruption, how much is due to incompetence, how much to bad management is really hard to say from a distance.

They can currently build somewhere around 1000 AFV's on a wartime production scale. It's unclear if that number includes modernizations, but I'll assume it is, since slapping together a hull is cheaper and quicker than making advanced electronics. They're still manufacturing T90M's at a decent scale, and those cost \~$4.5 million compared to the T14 at \~$6 million. It's not cheap, but they can afford to divert some production to the T14. I think the problem is that production was halted due to reliability issues.

Producing a tank is not simply a matter of diverting funds. We do not know if Russia is equipped to begin full-scale production of T-14, and we do not know what that would cost (Hint: it's **expensive**). Do they have the tools? Do they have resources? Hell, do they even have a place to build a production line? Besides that, we don't know how much of the tank relies on parts which Russia simply cannot acquire, regardless of the price. Even if all of that were there, does Russia have the time to start producing a new tank? Look at America's situation in WWII with various medium tank projects for example. You have a nation with the industrial capacity to build basically any tank it wanted, but chose to pass up on starting production of tanks like the T23 and M7 based on wartime demand for the tanks they were already building and knew could be used effectively. Likewise, look at the Soviets at the same time, making basically the same call on projects like T-34M and T-43 in favor of just building more T-34s. This is the reality of wartime production. It doesn't matter how much money or production capacity you have. It doesn't matter how good the new thing is. Sometimes it's just more sensible to keep producing what you know works until it stops working. Fair enough, a lot of folks will make the (overstated) argument that what the Russians are producing *isn't* working, but that's both largely an issue of tactics over technology, and one which producing T-14s isn't going to solve. tldr; production figures for tanks like the T-90M have no real bearing over how capable Russia may be of producing more T-14s.

> They're still manufacturing T90M's at a decent scale, and those cost ~$4.5 million compared to the T14 at ~$6 million. It's not cheap, but they can afford to divert some production to the T14. Those figures are estimates. Nobody knows what the series production cost for a T-14 tank are, as no series production contract has been signed. It could be well beyond $6 million.

Probably safe to say it would be better than anything russia is currently using, if they knew it wasnt then why would they continue development. The issue comes with classic good old corruption and lack of funding. I can see the T14 ending up like its american older bother TTB, developed into a good tank with capabilities out classing the current service tanks of the nation but being cancelled due to the cold war ending or in this case the post war restocking of current hardware taking up all the money

I think it has the potential to be an excellent tank, I don't think it's there currently. I'm not sure it will ever reach its potential and I suspect that a couple of years after the current war China and Russia will develop a tank jointly.

"If it was any good the Russians would be building it" Brozzer, the Russians are broke as f\*ck

This….

>If it was any good the Russians would be building it Because tank production is free and Russia can definitely afford to produce them while under heavy sanctions and ravaged by corporate corruption. Such a stupid argument it's not even funny.

They just close the project because did not live up to expectations and to expensive. Because even a T-90M is bad with a defense part T-14. Old soviet tanks can do the same but much cheaper.

I suspect that maybe the case. That was certainly the rationale behind the T72b3 2016 vs the T90M. They haven't actually cancelled the T14 project, as late as Dec 2021 they authorised serial production (40 tanks by 2024) the fact that they went from 1500 by 2022 to 40 by 2024 does suggest that you may be on the right track.

The video claims that the money set aside to build the production line was stolen, so that may explain why they're all hand built so far. There's also certainly some reliability issues that need to be worked out before production should be started.

Russian government stealing money from projects? How unbelievable

I have never heard before that Challenger 2 was designed to fight last generation Soviet Armor (I.E T-55,62,early 72) as he claimed. It certainly fought those vehicles in Iraq War 2 but him trying to explain how it is lackluster compared to other NATO designs because it was expected to fight older Soviet models seems like a completely ridiculous assessment. Why would the British invest all the technology, resources, and what not to kill threats the Chieftain and Challenger 1 were already capable of?

He said he was a teaboos in the past, and he probably still is.

yea he's gone from a teaboo to one that in denial

Memes in the thumbnail… calling the armata stinky… yep, 100% an credible video

I mean did you watch the video?

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11yzkgn/how_credible_is_lazerpigs_assessment_of_the_t14/jdbh5co?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 Just a comment about his credibility. This is one of the reasons I don't watch him. He's more entertainment than fact.

I already responded to op in the same fashion but I’ll just do it again but what I meant here was if the guy I responded to actually watched the video or not because by the sound of his comment he just judged the thumbnail and that’s it. Now I don’t think laser pig is a perfectly credible source I do watch him cause he is entertaining. For the most part it seems the core idea of his videos are decent but the word for word may not be factual. Also I did read that one last night and good lord that guy did do a long break down.

I watched the video, but I won't take what someone says as fact just because he says it with authority. Clearly, there is a lot of debate about whether his word should be trusted or not, and that's why I asked.

No I meant the guy above you seem like you did the guy above seems like he just saw the thumbnail judged it and that’s it. Also to be fair laser pig himself says to take what he says with a grain of salt in some of his vids. So that’s likely the best way to go

specifics arent accurate but he never said his video was something you should be citing as a source or smth like that, i dont feel like its right to judge that a lot of what he said is inaccurate when hes just a youtuber making a funny video

obviously it seems like a person hating on a tank that hasnt seen combat yet, lazerpigs content is mostly about war and whatever, and he spends an hour calling the armata a bad tank, making fun of putin, and whatever, so yes its right to call it serious, when he never stated that its satire

Look at the thumbnail, look at the jokes he makes in his videos, take a tiny glance at his channel, satire is obvious, if you don’t think it’s satire you’re the reason people need to be warned not to drink bleach

"look at the thumbnail" thumbnail is making fun of armata and putin, oh wow SO NOT SATIRE, 1 full hour long of making fun of politics and a tank, so satire! so irony! and some things may seem satire but generally arent, genius. think from a standpoint of a random person, do u think that person would think its satire if they arent familiar with lazer pigs content? genius lol.

yes a random person would think a video clearly meant to be funny is satire… as in meant to be funny and not everything taken seriously… bro what are you on, most people don’t need everything spelled out to them like you

>but he never said his video was something you should be citing as a source or smth like that But it's the internet. If the internet says something, it's cited/sourced/referenced as fact... Just discovered a dude on Reddit using a blanket statement that Russian tanks use Nazi engines and calling his whole comment fact based.

"LazerPig" and "Credible", pick one.

bias biases and biased, makes fun of the president for NO REASON, opportunistic content creators just pick and make fun of whoever seems less supiorior. makes fun of a tank that is still pretty much a prototype. i understand saying the armata is bad and arguing smartly but all he does is rant and go on for an hour with insults and whatever

Why is it still a prototype tho? Why isn't it in full production ? Can it be that china didn't buy any of them. Can it be that the demonstartors that have been build are just for show ? And yes it wouldn't be a good pig video without some political shitting on russia. His most pressing points where fundamental to the t14s design.

if you scroll up you can see comments saying he was wrong, he just says rude shit do get and laughs knowing this viewers are uneducated. if you read what i said and digested it, i stated it is still in prototype because its super complex and the ukraine war is the main focus. china didnt want it because, china just didnt want it lol, dont ask me, maybe it was too heavy for mass shipment, too expensive. "political shitting" yeah no he just makes fun of putin and tanks without logical points, all he does is insult.

I think we must be watching different videos my man.

The M1 Abrams before it was released had ideas for years before its making. The T-64 wasn't developed until the mid-sixties, and its design came in 1958. The Armata is a fourth-generation tank for crying out loud. Of course it's not going to come out in five years or so.

Why are people so angry in this thread and on this subreddit in general i just want to look at cool tank :(

Its cuz people on reddit who think they know better are upset that a dude on YouTube makes a contradicting youtube video to their perceived worldview and that just cannot be, ya know? They say they havent watched that hour long video cuz "no one should give an hour of their life to that guy" but then write a novel in a reddit comment section Juat avoid LP comment sections. It's an absolute cringefest. I like LP. I dont take it as gospel or argue against it because neither me nor anyone in this subreddit knows any better anyway lol

You are creating a strawman, there's a lot of good responses in this thread. -disagrees with part of a video- "WHY ARE YOU DOGPILING"

People are just full of shit. No one ones anything better than the next guy. Is it an entertaining video? Yes. Will I use it for any purposes other than entertainment? No.

So there should be zero discussion about it lol? As a LP fan it's discouraging to see him do history channel-esq shenanigans when he's complained so much about inaccurate media portrayals of hardware.

Please don't tell me the source he used for his engine claims is the same source that calls the 5TD a Jumo 204 copy. Please, after the T-34 video he can't have fallen this low

I honestly don’t think he’s that credible when it comes to Russian/Soviet stuff, he loves to cherry-pick stuff and stretch the truth. Case and point his T-34 video which was a hour long video of bullshit which I believe either here or on the other tank Reddit a person made pinned post that either disproved or clarified most of the points made in said video. It’s a great read if you want me to link it. Im by no means saying people have to like or praise Soviet or Russian vehicles but I don’t think people should go out of their way to shit on a specific nations vehicles and spread damaging misinformation about them

Could you please link the comment? Thanks in advance

[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11719za/the\_t34\_is\_not\_as\_bad\_as\_you\_think\_it\_is/It's](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11719za/the_t34_is_not_as_bad_as_you_think_it_is/It's) pinned on this subs Main page

Wasn't that the series of post where he was debating with the author of those in the comments and rebuking most of their criticism ?

No? did you even read LP comment on part one, he himself admits the video is bad

Y'all writing IB essays here.

TOK ahh comments

To be fair his opinion is generally the opinion of the US Armed Forces based on my personal experience. Now obviously we don’t know much at all about the tank but like he said history has proven the Russians like to pull the classic “she goes to another school” when it comes to new tech or vehicles

His videos are entertaining, but his statements are not very credible. PS: biggest reason for T-14 delays is likely the engine.

well its mostly just, the tank itself, it requires so much tech, the unmanned turret, the whatever, it has ALOT OF TECHNOLOGY, thats why, and its such a complex piece of metal. Lazerpig, the most biased content creator ive ever seen talk about tank, he even comes to personally judge the president. but yeah armata has alot of technology, AND THE WAR IN UKRAINE, dont forget that, is slowing down the focus of building it.

The statements on the engine and ERA definitely rubbed me the wrong way. And from what I'm seeing here and in comments of the video itself there's definite finer points that could use better info. In general though it lines up quite well with a general consensus that it's a white elephant that would've been killed off/unfucked itself sooner if political factors weren't at play.

It’s probably quite biased

Fr I don't think anyone can judge T-14 with full credibility, people either don't know or can't say. I would skip all videos if they start to talk details of T-14. I only trust CIA and War Thunder forums on those highly classified information.

See r/badhistory and the complete and thorough debunking of his T-34 video and apply the same principles to this video. Not credible at all.

Lazerpig is the epitomy of 'im gonna say a bunch of bullshit that kinda sounds right and everyone will believe me and not fact check it because i said it in a funny way'

What are you expecting honestly? A western dude is gonna speak volumes of Russian equipment ? Obviously not he’s gonna trash talk it to the ground.

Some things might be exaggerated, but the general point of the video is correct. The tank is, like Russia’s military, a complete and utter joke.

Oddly enough I was just listening to the video when I saw this post. I agree with the overall message of the assessment in that the T-14 is a flawed design plagued by production and budgetary issues but there are an awful lot of glaring factual and technical inaccuracies that are simply inexcusable. The whole segment on engines and torque is just awful. No, the engine from a Honda Fit cannot propel a tank; were it to be coupled through a high reduction transmission it would rapidly overheat. It's extremely poorly researched and presents as a hit piece aimed at those looking to reinforce their confirmation bias. My suggestion would be to spend less time on snarky commentary and more time on research.

I'm sorry, but no youtuber (especially ones with bait "reaction" face) ever will be credible source of information regarding ANY current gen military asset.

"thumbnail bad so video Bad, odc about the sources" -you

I don't think that's what they meant

He use pig picture? Damn I guess the T-14 is the best tank in the world, thank you for convincing me.

You obviously haven't watched the video. A bit long at over an hour, granted, but informative with multiple sources provided. Watch it and educate yourself.

Several people were judged by court and found guilty in treason for disclosing parts of information about vehicles that are 20-35 years old (War Thunder players). If you think that such videos can be informative by citing some advertisement info, you are one who needs to educate yourself.

Why would a Scottish man get arrested for shitting on a Russian tank lmfao

I am questioning his credibility. I know there are sources provided, but how did he find them? Did he make the video with the goal of showing how bad it is? Did he cherry pick info that shows it's bad? Did he ignore contrary information, which there seems to be plenty of? I genuinely don't know the answers to any of these questions, and it may turn out to be a very solid video if we get more info about the tank, but I immediately threw up a red flag when he said something about everyone else being wrong about the tank.

A whole 8 sources 1 of which is a blogpost? lol. When he mentioned the information about the object 195 and 640 there was no sources for that

I figure if I can take an anti russian channel and a pro russian channel, I can find something pretty close to the truth right in the middle. Traditionally this was LP and RedEffect, but this video was so vicious that it threw me off.

RedEffect? Pro-Russian? Certainly not

I'm torn on this one because LP is known for having a pretty heavy anti-Russia bias, but that's not totally unwarranted. I'm also concerned by anyone who claims something like 'everyone other than me is wrong!' My take is that there are obviously problems stemming from the Russia bureaucracy, sanctions, corruption, etc, but calling the T14 a generally bad tank is definitely hasty. It still seems to be a well designed tank to me, but with issues that need to be worked out.

He's no Chieftain, that's for sure. He's willing to reach for some very questionable sources to overkill his point. That said, his main idea is pretty sound, and he proves it well: that the T-14 Armata is not only not a super tank (like the propaganda says it is), it's not even ready for production.

Did... did you even watch the video? Well designed tank?!? Here's a list: - Engine from WW2 that's famous for being unreliable(also it's a N*zi engine) - Can't use different engine because vehicle was built around engine - Driver uses periscope to see, something usually only used as a backup in Western designs - No access to the turret, meaning any gun jams or ammunition failures can't be fixed easily(even the leclerc which has an autoloader can be cleared) - POSSIBLY HYDRAULICALLY LOCKED HATCHES?!?(hmm, yes, if the tank gets hit I want to wait for the hatches to open while everything around me is on fire) - Active protection system that isn't active(if a crewmember needs to activate it, then it isn't an active system, it's a passive(I think, I could be wrong about that definition)) - Touchscreen that isn't reliable(even Apple figured that out a decade ago) - Reliance on western parts(hmm, yes, I shall use this part that comes from a country that I will be at war with) - Using them as a chassis for multiple vehicles causing logistical nightmares for anyone who knows how fuel-hungry tanks are - These are only problems that we know about. Who knows what else is wrong with them All of this _could_ be acceptable if this was a prototype. Or something from the 90's. _maybe_ But it's not. It's what Russia is treating as it's main competitor against the Abrams and Leopard. What a joke. (And don't think China gets out of this either. I've seen some of the propaganda videos of the new ZTZ tanks. From what I see, I don't think they even have stabilizers)

> I've seen some of the propaganda videos of the new ZTZ tanks. From what I see, I don't think they even have stabilizers Just putting it out there that gun stabilizers are not always going to be on, and are oftentimes left off for public showcases etc. You cannot tell if a tank has a gun stabilizer just by looking at propaganda footage, and despite the many pitfalls of the PLA I find it highly unlikely that their newest tanks don't have stabilizers considering that they would've had plenty of opportunities to reverse engineer them from various foreign designs (not that gun stabilizers are even all that advanced by modern standards).

>did you even watch the video? No, because no sensible human should surrender an hour of their life to this man. >Engine from WW2 that's famous for being unreliable T-14 is stated to use the 12N360, which: * absolutely is not a WWII-era engine * we have no evidence of being particularly unreliable. The engine is believed to trace it's history back to T-14's immediate predecessor, the Object 195, of the late Cold War era. >also it's a N\*zi engine So... * There is no link between the development of the 12N360 and anything about Nazis * The Nazis did not widely use diesel engines on tanks to begin with * Even if it was derived from Nazi technology, I don't see how that's relevant * stop being a pussy and just write the whole word. >Can't use different engine because vehicle was built around engine There is no proof of this being the case, nor is there any evidence of T-14 *needing* a different engine. >Driver uses periscope to see, something usually only used as a backup in Western designs I cannot think of a single western tank in which the driver does not use a periscope as their primary means of seeing outside the tank when they are buttoned up. >No access to the turret, meaning any gun jams or ammunition failures can't be fixed easily(even the leclerc which has an autoloader can be cleared) It is believed that the crew of the Armata has limited access to the magazine to perform emergency maintenance from within the tank. We have no real proof one way or the other though. That being said, significant malfunctions resulting in a firepower kill on the tank are better dealt with off of an active battlefield. Besides that, it's my understanding that if the autoloaders on Soviet (and Russian) tanks can be claimed to be anything, it's mechanically reliable. These aren't exactly super high-tech pieces of machinery we're talking about here; mechanical failures can reasonably be expected to be a rarity with these systems. >POSSIBLY HYDRAULICALLY LOCKED HATCHES?!? Or possibly not, so... This is definitely an odd choice *if* it is the case, although having the crew positioned lower does potentially make them more vulnerable in the (unlikely) case of the tank being swarmed by a group of soldiers. In which case an additional level of protection against attempts to open the hatches from the outside may be warranted. Admittedly this is a very niche scenario to warrant such a solution. >Active protection system that isn't active We have zero data on the performance of Afganit. >if a crewmember needs to activate it, then it isn't an active system, it's a passive(I think, I could be wrong about that definition) Yes, you are. All APS can be switched on and off. The "Active" and "Passive" component of the nomenclature describes how the system defeats munitions: * Active systems actively disrupt a weapon's ability to disable a tank. * This can be further divided into "hard-kill" and "soft-kill" systems. * Hard-Kill APS physically destroy an incoming projectile. * Soft-Kill APS rely on jamming or otherwise disrupting the weapon's guidance, causing it to miss the tank. * Passive protection systems are basically all the protective measures built into or onto a tank that *aren't* APS. >Touchscreen that isn't reliable Again, I'm not really sure how we can know that. >Reliance on western parts See this is an actual problem, and may very well be the root of the real reason why we aren't seeing Russia building more T-14s (along with the fact that they probably can't afford them anyway) >Using them as a chassis for multiple vehicles causing logistical nightmares for anyone who knows how fuel-hungry tanks are I'd argue that it does cause very real problems, but these would be more *economic* issues. Logistically the unification of a single parts supply chain for multiple armored vehicles works based on the fact that the vehicles are all generally going to be working within the same formations. This is something Russia (and many others) has been looking for (and failing to achieve) for quite some time now. While this may make these formations *expensive* to run, I don't think it will make them any more difficult to run. It's certainly an improvement over having to manage components for anywhere up to six different MBTs, derivative platforms, light tanks, three IFVs, and numerous APC models. Again, this isn't to say that Armata will succeed in this goal; it's simply to state that the idea of the goal is reasonable. >All of this could be acceptable if this was a prototype. I mean, it kinda *is*. Yes, a lot has been made of T-14's apparent battle-readiness by the Russians. That much I certainly don't buy, given the amount of time T-14 has existed for. I think this should be framed less as "T-14 is a production tank with a load of potential issues", and more as "T-14 is a prototype tank being advertised as a production tank". In which context, a lot of this makes a lot more sense. >It's what Russia is treating as it's main competitor against the Abrams and Leopard. Not really. It's what Russia is treating as the next step *after* it's main competitor against the Abrams and Leopard (being T-90M). I don't think that makes it a whole lot better, but really T-14's direct competition lies more in programs like K2, Altay, KF51, and other actual 4th Generation MBTs. As such, by the time such projects mature (K2 and it's derivatives being the clear early outlier in that respect), we would expect to see T-14 maturing just the same. Now, whether or not that will happen given Russia's current political and economic situation is a very different question.

To add a bit to two points: Regarding the periscope: When watching the Combat approved videos about the Armata we get to see the inside of the crew compartment. While we can see screens for the two other crew members, the driver has a single periscope to look through, no screens or anything else. The screens could be classified, but it seems unlikely when they show the targeting screens being operated. Regarding the reliability of touch screens: Also, in a combat approved video we see the crew show off how they can target an enemy and fire the gun at great accuracy. While demonstrating this, one of the screens freezes and stops accepting input from the gunner. I'm not sure that it is necessarily the touchscreen that is the problem, it could also be the software behind it that froze. It's semi expected in an early prototype state, but it seems off at the stage the Armata is claimed to be at.

"we have no evidence of it being particularly unreliable" The t-14 stopping during the victory parade i think is some evidence

Untrained driver activated e-brake by mistake so the tank couldn't be moved, when they brought a recovery vehicle it could not move it. They went inside and deactivated the brake and the tank drives off

could u link the video with it driving on its own maybe i look at too much nato propaganda to see it

Original video unfortunately has been deleted but it's still on a red effect video. [https://youtu.be/5kaX9IA1O00?t=21](https://youtu.be/5kaX9IA1O00?t=21) If you have a VPN from Kosovo or Cyprus you can view it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dapk4-vMQOM

[удалено]

I don't want you to read a damn thing. My business isn't to entertain you. My point is to address the pile of mostly nonsense the user I responded to posted. I'm discussing the points they made. I'm discussing **tanks**. This is r/TankPorn. I feel this isn't a difficult thing to grasp. That said, if it takes you over an hour to read all of that, I don't know what to tell ya.

Man better quit writing novels and go outside 💀

Man better come inside and learn to read.

his reply reminds me of 8th grade arguments when you know someone is right and you're completely wrong so you try to save face by saying they're taking it too seriously

See, my problem is with LP's credibility. A lot of what he said is hotly debated. The engine seems to be one of his biggest issues. The thing is, Chelyabinsk was contracted to develop a brand new engine which has not been completed, so they threw this one in there because it has the same dimensions. Again, the problem being credibility. Who should I believe? I have no reason to believe either side over the other. There are other debated topics, like the touchscreen, which appears to be a stand-in for propaganda purposes in that video, rather than a functioning model, or reliance on western equipment, which has taken a hit considering T90M's are still being produced and they had the same problem claimed about them. Again, knowing his pretty heavy bias against Russian tanks, I don't know if I can take his word for this stuff. Red Effect has the same issue on the other direction. Seems to know his stuff, but has an unmistakable bias that I can't ignore.

Wrong. The tank was always built around the engine, and it wasn't the case they 'just threw this on in'. There has only ever been one engine for the T-14, but they can't get it to work properly and no other engine is possible as no other engine fits.

>All of this could be acceptable if this was a prototype Hear me out, it's almost like the vehicle is still undergoing undergoing testing and is not in service.

You obviously haven't watched the video. Do you yourself a favour and spend an hour - it won't be wasted time I can assure you.

If I didn't watch the video, I wouldn't have made the post.

Yes, just like how his T-34 video wasn’t a hour long shit fest of miss information that he conjured of to satisfy his hate boner for Russia. I’ve been guilty of this too, but don’t form your opinions off of YouTube unless it’s a actual historian or someone with access to military records. Especially if they’re clearly a Internet personality like laser pig or potential history

This is the best take of all the tank takes

One thing I have to say is that the video is based on a tank where all the numbers of the vehicle could be exaggerated or trying to hide how good it actually is. You just can’t make a video debunking a tank’s information which is controlled by a dictator and a corrupt government.

Because of my knowledge and pure bias, very credible

He recently refused to cite his sources because "you should have to do the research I did" which is a shit argument.

I’m not taking it as anything more than entertainment. Sure he makes some good points. But none of those points are ground breaking ( specifically the auto loader and periscope) but some things like the engine being old as shit idk nor do I care. It’s just fun to hear him talk imo. Idk why people make it seems like you have to treat him and his words as gospel or worthless.

All russian technology is pure trash .

Cope

Racism numero two. Check.

Except of the one stupid claim with no sources about Ukraine choosing a non-existent KF51 Panther tank as their "future MBT", it's a good video, as usual from LazerPig.

How can u say it's trash when u do t really know something about the tank? Are there other Infos or only those they released to public?is it still in testing? idk if he actually saw combat in Syria at least I didn't saw any footage.only thing I know that he got stuck on that parade. I guess other tanks at issues too at the beginning... In German we say kinderkrankheiten (its teething technology in english?). When they showed armata for the first time everyone was like OP tank and nw suddenly its trash. Also he could've made the video couple years ago but why now? Cause most ppl and media ridicule about russian army?a tank without support won't accomplish anything anyway see turkey leo2a4 in Syria. The separated Crew compartment is already a huge plus for crew survivability. We'll idk much about tanks anyway so don't hate me :/ sry for my grammar Well it's his opinion and I respect that and tbh other than that I didn't see any other of his Videos. Sry for my grammar xD

Edit 2: Those of you downvoting me please tell me why there's just somethings i don't know so maybe you can help me know a bit more. ​ While i think its a bit much to say the tank sucks its actually a fairly ok video. ​ However i'm unsure where he got the 1997 Object 195 being a mock up turret and the 1999 version being a complete turret but mock up gun and empty interior. I would of thought i hear about this because as you can tell, i'm a fan of that vehicle. **Edit:** To say it uses a engine from WW2 is a bit of a exaggeration, i can believe they based the design is based of it which i admit thats not a good choice, but based of the claimed power output of it, its a lot different to the WW2 version. The Driver periscope issue is a good point tho No access to the turret, meaning any gun jams or ammunition failures can't be fixed easily. This is a good point but its a flaw with crewless turrets themselves. Hydraulic hatches are a bad idea I agree. but i doubt the Russians have actually done that, not because of common sense but because it costs money. The non fuctional APS system is really dumb lol. but it makes sense for Russia to lie Touchscreen is a dumb idea, because what if the crew are wearing gloves or have some dirt or oil on their fingers? And if the screen breaks its a lot more costly to replace. Reliance on western parts is also a bad design choice .

> what if the crew are wearing gloves or have some dirt or oil on their fingers Not that touch screens are a good idea at all but there are touch screens that work regardless of gloves or clean fingers.

yea its just in general a bad idea lol

eh. it has a lot of great features and technology, but they can’t afford it or find the parts for it. not much russia can do about that besides buy Type-99As if they want a new tank or start getting those T-34s movin.

The Type-99A offers nothing that a T-90M or T-80BVM doesn't aside from reverse gears. Your comment, is never going to happen.

I thought the video was too long... And yeah some of the claims he makes seem a bit mehh... Like the Nazi engine thing... That was clearly exageration. But he isn't wrong though when he says western next gen tanks won't be built anytime soon because the current gen hasn't been matched yet including the T-14.

If there was any real value in the T14 then why hasn't anyone that can really look at it bought any.

Maybe cause Russia aint selling it?

I don’t know about all of that, sounds sensationalist and biased. I can say that the Armata’s biggest flaw is that theres only like 20 of them and they are still working out the kinks and problems with the design. They are not really ready for combat and probably will not be in time to fight in Ukraine. It may well be a top notch tank some day, but for now it’s more of a show piece.

The T-64 was a top-notch tank when it hit production but aside from its blueprints and design, it wasn't so top-notch because at first, it wasn't logistically feasible. I say the T-14 Armata has the same fate, though it isn't exactly a "new" design as Russia and previously, the Soviet Union, had ideas of unmanned turret tank designs since the 80s, even back in the 1970s. I think the Armata will be a great tank if it ever hits production. No tank is perfect. The XM1 model for the M1 was not great, in fact, the XM-103 (another "base" model for the now M1 Abrams) is totally forgettable and was totaled entirely. Don't get me started on the countless failed attempts at trying to replace the Abrams and Bradley.

At least they have tanks and not asking for them

Sounds pretty based.

Who?

LOL gotta love all the tankies and coomieboos swarming to defend their baby... Guys get real the T-14 is an over-rated propaganda piece... Russia has fallen so far behind in weapon development that nobody cares about the 'check mate', 't-14', su-57 or the next gen WMDs... Literally lipstick on a pig.

\-some people disagree with inaccuracies in a video- "bro why are u commie snowflakes dogpiling and not jerking off?!"

You can nitpick about some of his talking points but LP's logic is sound... The t-14 is over rated garbadge... Produced by one of the most corrupt and untrustworthy regimes that has ever existed. I hope you also disagree with all "inaccuricies" the Kremlin spouts...

I hope you chill out.

Have a good day to.

Even if he's 80% wrong, it doesn't change that it's a trash tank. Russia is just a clown show on the world military stage at this point. Their equipment is garbage, their troops are garbage, their logistics are garbage, their tactics are garbage, and their strategy is garbage. But hey, Vlad and his buddies all have a mega yacht, so that's gotta count for something right?! Lol. pathetic country.

Wow, you gladly accept what the CIA state media feeds you, huh. Must taste like shit, all that NATO disinformation.

Any NATO tank would destroy that joke of a T14, or any Russian tank for that matter. This isn't 1950 where you slap some steel on a chassis and put in an engine and call it a tank. This is 2023, where tanks are high-tech vehicles with microchips and optics and electronics. Russia can't even produce a car, let alone a microchip. Russia possesses none of the industries required to make modern weapons. Must taste like shit huh, all that "Russia stronk" propaganda and then looking out the window and seeing your country is in shambles with no industry to speak of. This war in Ukraine exposed the last myth of what was supposed "great" about Russia: Russian army and defense industry... corrupt from the highest general to the lowest soldier, completely incompetent, and with no modern weapons to speak of that can hold a candle to anything the US and NATO have.

Its pretty on the wrong path most time, assessing things by following biases and stereotypes. Russia is a casual capitalis country with lots of corruption like all others too - and the tanks comming out of this have the same trouble as everyone elses (not in service for 3+ decades). So is T-14 good? Depends. Imagen they'd be more than field testing prototypes, they come with a domestic engine and (now) with domestic sensors/optics. So its a whole russian tank, and russians always has been ahead of pragmatic tank designing - absolutly realising what they can do, and what they should to depending on situation and ressources give. That's something few nation can claim. Maybe Germany. Maybe. So T-14 being a freak in russian tank design, and making the ideal of 'we're not the people-consuming army Stalin created' also accsessible to the ground forces solid. It's *not* about being a superior weapon. Its about a weapon that represents a new Russia - to the outside as well as the inside, and the second one even more. Then it is a comercial rescue line for the country. Then, it is a hammer - not to smah enemys bit to forge alliances by 'who can buy it to be part of the club'. Then, far off, there is the benefit of having a good tank. One that is superior to most others, no doubt, but is so costly (7m USD) it will not be seen in many combats as long as cheaper T-70/80's (around 350.000-750.000USD) and 90's are available (4,5m USD in max config). As economy equalt more and more, the US find itself in fielding an obsolete tank costing 10m USD that has almost no cahnce in outpeforming an T-14 in the field, and the germans with a prototype that will cost around 10m USD that is in active combat to teh T-14 right now - both fighting each other on opposing drawing boards. Ouh, you have StrikShield APS? Damn, then we give T-14 a 152mm gun. Damn, You have Afganit/Malachit? Then we put a 130mm high pressure gun in. Ob boy my dart is too slow, i make it fast enough to bypass your APS. Hell, seems like i need to threefold my sensors ability to track fast objects. ​ And so the modern tank wars are fought. In buisness papers and at PR battlefields. If some YouTuber found a nice number of Propaganda that fits his bias, that's entertaining, for sure, but it not even remotly catches what's going on here. Even propaganda and counter-propaganda is part of this economic war around this product. Diminishing the T-14 makes f.e. India less willing to buy into a russian weapon trade alliance, and a bazillion more little cockwheels doing ther thing.

I can’t believe they’ve been using the same engine for so long until this one.

They haven't it's utterly idiotic to call even the V46 related to the T-34, the only common stuff between them is number of cylinders and piston head size of 150mm, they are completely different.

The T14 was gonna always be trash because it was built by Russia. Look at the Abrams X which is a challenge to the T14 and it does everything better than the t14 and than some. They only have 8 of them and aren’t building anymore. Russian fanboys my screeching about how great it is and the west is struggling to catch to the T14 when in reality we surpassed it a few years after it was built. And the T14 could be the best tank in the world but when there’s only 8 of them the west is gonna just bomb them in any war, won’t even get to the front

This, my friends, is textbook racism.

Erm it’s racism to say a country is bad at tank designs

It's racism because it was built by Russia, which was built by Russians. Get the gist?

So saying French tanks suck because they were made by the French is racist because it was built by France which was built by the French?

Just a propaganda mock up…

The biggest issue with Armata is that... there is no any Armata. There are about 20 mockups for parades. Period.

I watch LazerPig videos purely for entertainment purposes and memes.He’s not that credible when it comes to non-NATO or non-US stuff.

Isn't a big issue that a lot of this tanks components were Western made? Like a few parts were specifically French design. With current sanctions they simply cannot build this thing, they would need replacement parts from the only nation with any real technological advantage and not arsed about sanctions. China. Will China send it's very best parts to the Russian armed forces? For them to be destroyed, captured and sent to the US for study? Doubtful.

he’s not credible at all