Bright Future "Dinosaur" T-95 Tank

[ptldM3]

T-95 is not exactly small:

I'm 99.9% sure that is an MTSA howitzer.

 

[500]

I'm 99.9% sure that is an MTSA howitzer.

since when msta has 7 road weels? its ob 195.

 

[mnd]

T-90 does not have crew of 3 in front hull, it does not have manless turret, it has two guys there. So you failed.

I was comparing the T-90 to the T-64 there, following your logic. Both have the same configuration, a crew of 3, an autoloader, etc so they must be comparable, but the T-64 has less mass, smaller and that indicates the T-90 is not good... LOL, you cannot get any conclusions from that, as you did, by comparing the T-95 to that old thing, because the configuration is similar,.

Yep its very advanced.

Of course.

I've seen T-55 many times. It has more volume and more height than T-72 and T-90. So u fail again.

LOL, no. I did not even looked at the specs prior to comparing it. You just said no, then had nothing to base on and came up with that it is "bigger" because of a turret heigh...

spare me of ur nonsense lectures. Better learn a bit.

It´s not me who has to learn. It´s just that you did not understood the statement about the tank´s design from the start. It talked about how that design can be less vulnerable than modern western tanks, because it allowed a smaller turret. You did not waited to think, and with your bias, stated that it was not correct, and compared the pic with an old, unrelated vehicle to support your biased argument, under the pretext that it is comparable because "the configuration is similar".

And that picture I have posted is not nosense, it showed what I was trying to explain you. With "size" they refer to projection, and the pic showed how a round turret had less weak spots when hit from different angles, than a large turret with the ammo storage at the back, like the Abrams, and hence was less vulnerable. Projection is a basic feature to have in mind when designing tanks, and it is design what is important for good protection, not the amount of armor you put.

Here´s the supposed model of the T-95, compared to the Abrams:


As you see, the "round" turret of the supposed T-95 has also less projection than the Abrams, is less vulnerable, and that fully corresponds with that statement, which you said it was wrong, either because you did not understood, or was biased.

 

[500]

I was comparing the T-90 to the T-64 there, following your logic. Both have the same configuration, a crew of 3, an autoloader, etc so they must be comparable, but the T-64 has less mass, smaller and that indicates the T-90 is not good... LOL, you cannot get any conclusions from that, as you did, by comparing the T-95 to that old thing, because the configuration is similar,.

T-90 is modernization of T-72 and T-72 is cheaper version of T-72.

LOL, no. I did not even looked at the specs prior to comparing it. You just said no, then had nothing to base on and came up with that it is "bigger" because of a turret heigh...

You said nonsense that T-55 is smaller than T-72. I proved that you are wrong.

Here´s the supposed model of the T-95, compared to the Abrams:

This model is crap. Abram's height at turret roof is 2.35 m. T-95 accoridng to pics is over 2.8 m. But on your model they are almost same.

 

[mnd]

T-90 is modernization of T-72 and T-72 is cheaper version of T-72.

?. All tanks evolve from earlier designs. If you look it from that perspective, then the T-90 is just a modification of the old T-34.

You said nonsense that T-55 is smaller than T-72. I proved that you are wrong.

LOL, how? you are not gonna to convince me, I know and I have seen it. And that argument was pretty f...

This model is crap. Abram's height at turret roof is 2.35 m. T-95 accoridng to pics is over 2.8 m. But on your model they are almost same.

You should realize, that perspective is playing with you.

And the T-95s turret is still smaller anyways, and against that round design, the Abrams and the rest of western tank´s have the same vulnerability disadvantage as with the T-90 I shown.

 

[500]

?. All tanks evolve from earlier designs. If you look it from that perspective, then the T-90 is just a modification of the old T-34.

No. T-34 and T-90 are very different tanks. T-90 id modification of T-72.

LOL, how? you are not gonna to convince me, I know and I have seen it. And that argument was pretty f...

You did not bring any arguments so far, only baseless claims as usual. If u dont understand numbers here pics:

You should realize, that perspective is playing with you.

And the T-95s turret is still smaller anyways, and against that round design, the Abrams and the rest of western tank´s have the same vulnerability disadvantage as with the T-90 I shown.

Very small and very round turret:

 

[mnd]

No. T-34 and T-90 are very different tanks. T-90 id modification of T-72.

Which was derived from T-64 which was derived from T-54 which was derived from T-34. And this response from your´s to my critic to your way of "comparing" does not follow any logic...

You did not bring any arguments so far, only baseless claims as usual. If u dont understand numbers here pics:

LOL, what numbers? I knew what I said because I have seen and I not even looked at those wiki numbers (which even shown I was right). You then came up with a turret heigh silly argument to support that silly claim.

And posted some pic from the front to make the impression that it is bigger, LOL, I could also compare to a T-34, and make it look "a monster"

Here you are:

Way "bigger", isn´t it?

Very small and very round turret:

Ok, you again posted a pic to "favour" you, low quality and from an angle... (It´s still looks round to me)

But let´s not get confused with difficult photos, and have a look at the tank compared to a western one, to make an idea if it´s true, or not:

 

[500]

Which was derived from T-64 which was derived from T-54 which was derived from T-34. And this response from your´s to my critic to your way of "comparing" does not follow any logic...

There is nothing common between T-54 and T-64.

LOL, what numbers?

Height at roof top. Thats main indication of size.

I knew what I said

U did not show any knowledge so far.

But let´s not get confused with difficult photos, and have a look at the tank compared to a western one, to make an idea if it´s true, or not:

I post a real photo and u post some crappy CGI.

T-95's turret reachs under the chest of that man. That means its about 1.2 m. Abrams' turret is 85 cm, i.e. 1.4 times lower.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

looks more like a SP gun thn a tank.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

T-95 is not exactly small:




Here US similar project for comparison:

Thanks for the pics. Do you know the hull thickness on these?

 

[mnd]

There is nothing common between T-54 and T-64.

No soviet tank was made from zero. All were evolutions of the previous.

Height at roof top. Thats main indication of size.

Really? I though that was weight, width, mass, overall volume. Oh, and I did not knew that T-34 was one of those supertanks... By your logic it should... Are you realizing how silly your statement is?.

And once you see the drawings I posted, it is clearly seen, even thought the T-72s pic is smaller.

U did not show any knowledge so far.

I pretty did, and your arguments are funny to say the least. Even If I did not shown any knowledge, you wouldn´t understand it anyway, by the things you post here.

I post a real photo and u post some crappy CGI.

That´s a 3D representation at the exact scale as the original in the photos, It proves my/the designer´s point, a smaller turret with less projection. Oh, and that 3D drawing was done from doing this:

And a comparison of 3D models is better suited for drawing conclusions than just from 1 single photo from one angle.

T-95's turret reachs under the chest of that man. That means its about 1.2 m. Abrams' turret is 85 cm, i.e. 1.4 times lower.

By looking the model, the comparison, even if the turret is somewhat higher, it is smaller overall, and it´s design, round, not long, not wide, is less vulnerable than in any western´s turret, big and voluminous.

 

[500]

No soviet tank was made from zero. All were evolutions of the previous.

There are evolutionary and revolutionary models:

T-34-75' evolution is T-34-85.

Then T-44 was revolutionary model. After it we had evolutionary T-54, T-55, T-62.

Then another revolutionary model - T-64. T-72, T-80, T-90 are its evolutions. Just like Leopard 2A1 is evolution of Leopard 2A7.

Really? I though that was weight, width, mass, overall volume. Oh, and I did not knew that T-34 was one of those supertanks... By your logic it should... Are you realizing how silly your statement is?.

T-34 is large tank. Thats why T-54 is much much stronger armored and armed than T-34, although they weight almost same.

Same goes with T-64 it weights same as T-55 but much stronger armored because it is lower and less volume.

And once you see the drawings I posted, it is clearly seen, even thought the T-72s pic is smaller.

Your pics show nothing because they are not in scale. My pic is in scale.

That´s a 3D representation at the exact scale as the original in the photos, It proves my/the designer´s point, a smaller turret with less projection. Oh, and that 3D drawing was done from doing this:

This CGI is crappy and not in scale. Hull's height is over 1.6 m, turrets height - 1.2 m overall - over 2.8 m. For comparison Abrams overall height is 2.35 and turret - 85 cm. Much smaller.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Which was derived from T-64 which was derived from T-54 which was derived from T-34. And this response from your´s to my critic to your way of "comparing" does not follow any logic...



LOL, what numbers? I knew what I said because I have seen and I not even looked at those wiki numbers (which even shown I was right). You then came up with a turret heigh silly argument to support that silly claim.

And posted some pic from the front to make the impression that it is bigger, LOL, I could also compare to a T-34, and make it look "a monster"

Here you are:

Way "bigger", isn´t it?


Ok, you again posted a pic to "favour" you, low quality and from an angle... (It´s still looks round to me)

But let´s not get confused with difficult photos, and have a look at the tank compared to a western one, to make an idea if it´s true, or not:

What's the horsepower on these?

 

[nightcrawler]

T-95 according to my opinion will be smaller than its predecessors. I am no experts but I will base this opinion on following argument:
T-95 as the updates/news suggests will be using the 152mm projecting unlike any other western counterpart. This transition to a totally new round is based on the philosophy of first strike first kill...as no [even the frontal] armour is going to protect tank from a 152mm projectile.
Now provided they will use this round the turret logically will be shorter & so will be the overall profile; because this new round [being heavier & length] will pack more propellant & may have some terminally guidance system to automatically increase range as well as precision of the new round; though quantity of onboard ammo will reduce. Suffice is to say that for the new stronger/heavier round the tank profile in general will be smaller as the punch will be embed in the projectile itself & greater push from the long turrets isn't necessary...So 500 sir, how do you see this argument

 

[IND151]

i think fmbt will be indian avatar of t 95. may be it will be joint venture between Russia and India.