People seem to be worried about the height of the T-14
Just relax, the designers know what they are doing.
In my opinion, I think they do not place as much value as they did before with the whole "lower=better=harder to hit" concept.
With all the new sensors and weapons that the T-14 will be equipped with, they are most likely less concerned with a ambush type scenario where the vehicle would come under fire from other vehicles before the T-XX could destroy them.
Seems the designers do not think this is the case anymore.
Remember that the Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata vehicle families all likely have built-in concealment methods, such as the above photos showing the dual vents on the T-14. The most likely reason that was done for is to divide up the hot air column, increasing the surface area of the pipe that the hot air is in contact with, and increasing the time for any cooling measures to take effect. And looking at the shaping of the Bumerang, Kurganets, and Armata, they seem to be very suited for Low Observability against X-band radars.
The way the forward side ERA blocks on the Kurganets CGI models and real pictures available for viewing slope in to the hull.
The way the forward side ERA blocks also share the same frontal outline as the glacis.
The way the side ERA skirts on both Kurganets and Armata project outwards and away from the main hull, this seems to be a way of concealing the the wheels, torsion bars, and track in the top down, approximately 30 degrees from vertical in the frontal aspects, and 10 degrees from vertical on the side.
As well as any add-on measures such as Nadkidka that may not be shown yet.
I conclude that the designers have gone from concealment and minimization of profile to enemy ground forces in optical means of detection(Daylight Television, Low Light Television, Thermal, etc)
and have implemented wide scale concealment and profile minimization to both ground and air forces, in optical and radio means of detection.
What is also very impressive is that they have managed to satisfy the requirements for both wide-scale all out war against a superpower and at the same time, make a vehicle suited for close in urban environments.
What I mean by this is the classic ammo in the turret vs ammo under the hull.
The ammo in the hull is suited for wide-scale combat as in WW2, it was found that most shots that hit tanks were across the 60 degrees of the turret, Thus placing the ammo underneath the main armor arrays made sense and it decreased the likely chances of a ammo hit.
The ammo in the turret with blow-off panels is suited for urban situations where it becomes nearly impossible to keep the ammo in a least likely to be hit zone, so if a hit is made, then the crew stands a excellent chance of surviving, however in a wide-scale scenario, this was pointless as the crew would most likely be killed trying to run away and back to safety. If a tank can't survive in such an environment, then what chance does a 3 or 4 man group traveling on foot stand?
So they swapped the crew and ammo positions, now you can get the best of both worlds.
To sum it all up, this vehicle family is made to be the best in both wide-scale and urban conflicts and incorporates design solutions and technologies that are first in the world and first-class.
The notion that the Armata, Kurganets, and Bumerang are somehow "imitations" and "copies" of Western vehicle and design school is hilarious. No western vehicle can even hope to reach the forward thought put into this vehicle, no western vehicle family can possibly even speak of the integration this vehicle family has with the rest of the new Russian combined arms force, and surely no western vehicle can match the specifications nor the minimized logistical footprint that this vehicle family brings to the table.
I can't wait to see all the posts of "Russians copied us" and the "Russians went Western, haha!". Their delusions are a sight to behold.