Bright Future "Dinosaur" T-95 Tank

[nightcrawler]

DefenceDog: Bright Future "Dinosaur" T-95 Tank

Abstracts from article:

• Machine Ural KB under the symbol "object 195" quickly became known as the T-95.Information about the new tank was very sketchy, in fact, many then believed that the T-95 is only a paper project with no real future. However, in 2008-2009, spread information that the T-95 built and runs the state tests
• What kind of gun mounted on T-95 is uncertain, but apparently it is a 152-mm smoothbore gun / launcher high ballistics. Placing such a weapon on the tank were worked in Soviet times (eg Leningrad "object 292).Increasing the caliber main armament is dictated by the need to ensure a reliable lesion of both existing and prospective enemy armored vehicles, including with regard to their possible upgrade.
• T-95 is built on a new layout and features an uninhabited tower. The crew of three (possibly two) people located in bronekapsule* separated from the tower and the autoloader. This arrangement, first, sharply reduces the frontal projection of the tank, especially in its most beaten the top, which makes the car trudnouyazvimoy**. Secondly, significantly increases the chances of crew survival in case of effective hitting. Third, the desert tower facilitates large-caliber gun equipped tank.
• Looking ahead, we note that it gives the principal advantage of the T-95 over the prospective Western project, which will continue to place the ammunition in the turret, which increases its size compared to the tower T-95 and increases the likelihood of immediate destruction of the tank when hit in a compartment of ammunition.
• Detection system and target is an optical, thermal imaging, infrared channels. In addition, it will include a laser range finder and radar. Information about the environment will be displayed on the screens, which will create the effect of "seeing through the armor."
• Commenting on the expert, we can assume that demand for high levels of crew protection in conjunction with the development of a new platform for unified as tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles means, apparently, save the crew in a separate armored capsule, as in "object 195", as well as modular layout. Depending on the destination machine on the platform can be found fighting compartment of the tank with the weapons or else would take his place fighting and troop compartments BMP.

 

[Thomas]

T-95 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"in May 2010, deputy defense minister and chief of armaments Vladimir Popovkin announced that a number of programs for development of new armor and artillery weapons would be canceled. The main victim is the Object 195 program. Popovkin said the military will focus on modernization of the T-90 instead."

 

[500]

[*]Looking ahead, we note that it gives the principal advantage of the T-95 over the prospective Western project, which will continue to place the ammunition in the turret, which increases its size compared to the tower T-95 and increases the likelihood of immediate destruction of the tank when hit in a compartment of ammunition.

T-95 is not exactly small:




Here US similar project for comparison:

 

[mnd]

This specific project is no longer supported by the MOD, though the company will continue with further developement. And in relation to the "next" tank, the Ministry requested to develope a new one with revised characteristics. Here´s part of the interview:

"Oleg Sienko: We are working to create a single combat platform, it is in heavy development, I can say that there is achieved a new quality, we are developing it, of course, at the request of the military.

And it takes into account the experience of T-95?

-Certainly."

The project is known as Armata and it will be the next unified heavy platform (tank) of the military .

About modernization:

"Uralvagonzavod will introduce a new generation tank T-90AM at the exhibition of arms, which will be held in Nizhny Tagil in the first half of September 2011"

ÂÏÊ.name - Íîâîñòè Âîåííî-Ïðîìûøëåííîãî Êîìïëåêñà Ðîññèè è äðóãèõ ñòðàí ìèðà - ÂÏÊ.name

T-72 tanks will be modernized (Rogatka upgrade)

Ñèåíêî ïðåäñòàâèò íà âûñòàâêå âîîðóæåíèé íîâûé òàíê – Ìèíîáîðîíû äàëî äîáðî íà ðàññåêðå÷èâàíèå. ×òî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé áîåâàÿ ìàøèíà - ÐÈÀ ÓÐÀ.ru

 

[mnd]

Here US similar project for comparison:

That has nothing "similar" but looks (not even) and the comparation is not correct.

 

[nightcrawler]

notice this :

Information about the environment will be displayed on the screens, which will create the effect of "seeing through the armor."

 

[500]

That has nothing "similar" but looks (not even) and the comparation is not correct.

Again expert is talking. Both have manless turret, crew of 3 in front and engine in rear.

 

[mnd]

Again expert is talking. Both have manless turret, crew of 3 in front and engine in rear.

LOL, those 2 have nothing in common, and are very different. I said that in reference to your comment, which critised the tank´s design by comparing it to that. By your logic, the T-80, T-90 haven´t also "low profile" because the T-55 is smaller. But ofcourse, they are similar, a gun, an autoloader...

 

[500]

LOL, those 2 have nothing in common, and are very different.

They are very similar.

I said that in reference to your comment, which critised the tank´s design by comparing it to that.

I only said that T-95 is not small.

By your logic, the T-80, T-90 haven´t also "low profile" because the T-55 is smaller.

T-55 is not smaller, on contrary.

 

[mnd]

They are very similar.

No they are not. Because it had that gun does not make it any similar.

I only said that T-95 is not small.

No, you did not . It was:

"it gives the principal advantage of the T-95 over the prospective Western project, which will continue to place the ammunition in the turret, which increases its size (projection) compared to the tower T-95..."

And you said: "T-95 is not exactly small" implying that the stament above is not correct, and to proove that biased point, compared it with some primitive tank, which was according to you, "similar" in some way, because of the turret.

And this was what I refuted, the comparison is not correct, and the T-95 can well have lower projection than modern (western) tanks, Abrams, Leopard, etc.

T-55 is not smaller, on contrary.

Not, it´s not. Have you ever seen it?

 

[500]

No they are not. Because it had that gun does not make it any similar.

I told you they have same exactly scheme: crew of 3 in front hull, unmanned turret in the middle and engine in rear.

No, you did not . It was:

"it gives the principal advantage of the T-95 over the prospective Western project, which will continue to place the ammunition in the turret, which increases its size (projection) compared to the tower T-95..."

And you said: "T-95 is not exactly small" implying that the stament above is not correct,

Yep statement above is nonsense. T-95 is not small at all.

and to proove that biased point, compared it with some primitive tank, which was according to you, "similar" in some way, because of the turret.

And this was what I refuted, the comparison is not correct, and the T-95 can well have lower projection than modern (western) tanks, Abrams, Leopard, etc.

Pic of tank I posted is not primitive at all. Very advanced design.

Not, it´s not. Have you ever seen it?

Yes I'v seen it. Height at turret roof:

T-55 - 2.4 m
T-72 - 2.19 m
T-80 - 2.19 m

 

[IND151]

T-95 is not exactly small:




Here US similar project for comparison:

where did you find this pictures? i searched for month to find them.

 

[mnd]

I told you they have same exactly scheme: crew of 3 in front hull, unmanned turret in the middle and engine in rear.

Yeah, and the T-90 has also the same as the T-64, 3 crew, a gun in a turret, and an automatic loader, they are then "similar"... But wait! the T-64 is smaller (I though it was more complicated than that).

Pic of tank I posted is not primitive at all. Very advanced design.

So advanced... so new...

Yes I'v seen it. Height at turret roof:

T-55 - 2.4 m
T-72 - 2.19 m
T-80 - 2.19 m

I´m not sure, but I though that overall size was distinct from just "turret height" and there´s also lenght, witdth, mass... and the T-55 is really smaller in real life.

Yep statement above is nonsense. T-95 is not small at all.

It´s not nosense, it´s just that you do not understand the context. If you refer to just "size", then by mass and etc the T-95 is lighter than modern western tanks (50 tonnes) but they do not refer to that in that statement. What do they refer to size in tanks is projection. Is projection what matters and it´s given by the design.:

Here for example they compare the T-90s turret with the M1 Abrams´s:


As you can see, the t-90s turret design has less projection than the Abrams´s, and it is less vulnerable. Given the T-95 turret´s round design, even if it is higher than for example, the Abrams, it will have less projection, and will be less vulnerable than western tanks, as the statement logically said.

 

[nightcrawler]

Have you also noticed the mentioning of an separate armoured capsule for the crew members. This has been added so as to create an harmless space in the sense that no ammo/projectiles will be stored in this capsule thereby increasing the crew life probability even in a clean strike or a total burn-out of the tank

 

[500]

Yeah, and the T-90 has also the same as the T-64, 3 crew, a gun in a turret, and an automatic loader, they are then "similar"... But wait! the T-64 is smaller (I though it was more complicated than that).

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.

So advanced... so new...

Yep its very advanced.

I´m not sure, but I though that overall size was distinct from just "turret height" and there´s also lenght, witdth, mass... and the T-55 is really smaller in real life.

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

As you can see, the t-90s turret design has less projection than the Abrams´s, and it is less vulnerable. Given the T-95 turret´s round design, even if it is higher than for example, the Abrams, it will have less projection, and will be less vulnerable than western tanks, as the statement logically said.

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