19 Kilos how good is the T-14 Armata compared to our newest M-1s?

A tank is only as good as the crew operating it. Given that Russian tanks crews are poorly trained compared to American crews no amount of technology can make a bad crew into a well oil killing machine. Russian tank crews average 10 rounds per year of main gun ammo fired vs. over 100 for American crews.

There is a good discussion about the T-14 Armata on Quora.com. The T-14 is not in production yet and not much is known about it, but based on the observations made, it is at least as good as a T-90, but as to whether or not it is better than the M-1 Abrams... my opinion is "doubtful."

Nothing presently is known about the armor on the T-14 Armata but we can assume that it is at least on par with the T-90.

The main barrel of the Armata is 125mm and this is larger than the 120mm smoothbore of the M-1 Abrams. This tells us that it was designed to go toe-to-toe with the Abrams. I read that it can shoot anti-tank missiles out the main gun, but am unable to confirm that with another source. We can surmise that it "MAY" be able to engage the M-1 before the M-1 can engage it.

The M-1 Abrams and Leopard II were the first Western tanks to have 'shoot on the run' capability, as well as thermal sights and a laser rangefinder, but these improvements have become pretty much standard on modern MBT's. If it lacks any of these features, it's doubtful it would be a match for the Abrams, so we'll have to assume that it does have these capabilities. As to whether it can match the M-1 in accuracy... ???

Another interesting feature on the T-14 tank is that the turret is remotely controlled. The turret on the T-14 is smaller and uses an autoloader. This is something you see more on Russian tanks. On most Western tanks, the turret is heavily armored and can make up 1/3 the weight of the tank. The Russian tanks have less weight in the turret and so are lighter and lower profile, and this would seem to be an advantage BUT! the NATO philosophy on that is that we trust a human to load a shell more than we do a machine, which is subject to failure. Additionally, the low profile design of the turret prevents the barrel from being depressed as much, and so it can be a disadvantage if you are trying to 'hull down' in a fighting position. Given that the weight of the T-14 is estimated to be about the same as a modern MBT, we can assume that the Russians may have opted to increase its armor/survivability.

The T-14 is also the first Russian tank to be designed with a modular chassis and Western standards of crew survivability taken into account: the 3 crew members sit in an armored compartment in the front of the tank and thus they are separated from the ammunition, which is stored in its own secure compartment. As to whether this gives the T-14 an advantage over the M-1, where a crew member sits in the turret, remains to be seen. The modularity of the T-14 suggest that its chassis will be used as the base for a variety of future weapons systems.

SGM Steve Wettstein

I aKm not convinced that it's a better tank than our M1A2 tanks. This robotic turret that the tank contains is reminiscent of the earlier auto loaders which reputedly ripped the arms off crew members .

The Armata is lighter 48 tons as opposed to 72 for the M1A2 which depending on its power train could make it faster....but you can't outrun a 120MM round.

I think that a hit on the robotic turret , if it doesn't pop it off, will disable its electronics.

The Armata had an inauspicious beginning, breaking down in the Victory Parade.All in all its too early to tell.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/05/armata-soviet-parade-t14/26915519/