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.
All tanks followed an evolution from earlier tanks, either concept and/or design.
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.
T-34 was by no means large, as compared to today´s tanks. Is this a joke?
T-64 was similar sized (not much) to the T-55 because of implementation of new tech departing from an older design, it followed an evolution.
As technology/designs matured, the trend in fact was to make bigger/heavier tanks, but that is related to more advanced designs whose performance was way better than the earlier ones, and to modern context/conditions, and their volume, if you want to make conclusions, the tanks should be compared to their counterparts, and in no way to their predecessors.
Your point is void, you cannot compare a tank´s volume to an older one as you did (with the T-95) from a generation back and make conclusions and critize it, first because of the time frame/tech backround, and you have to take in account the entire performance, and the context on which it was designed, and compare it to modern foreign designs against which it is made, not against an older more primitive to make look your point valid.
Your pics show nothing because they are not in scale. My pic is in scale.
They are in scale, but they are from a perspective, and you have a problem with that. Neverthless, Both tank´s scale and perspective was equal in that pic, and you can have an idea and make conclusions from that.
The pic you show is useless, it´s impossible to make conclusion, and even more, to compare 2 designs from 1 single photo from a specific perspective. In different photos, the vehicle can appear bigger, smaller, flatter, etc. The only thing you use that photo for is to create a distorsionate vision and to make look your argument valid.
What was done in my 3D models is measure all the specs from available photos and compare it on the same scale. Your argument is: take a look at this single photo of 1 tank and go, compare.
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.
It´s scale was done using the same photos as you, and more. What happens is that it is made from a perspective first , and second, it´s you again. What happens is that you see the specs you see, and that one of them is bigger than the other (heigh in this case). As a result, you automatically form the "image" or "concept" in your mind that it has to look really bigger. That´s a distorsionate image that you created yourself, and confused, or you just use an empty, non logicall argument, or both.
By mere specs (only looking at heigh as you did) you cannot correctly determine, imagine, how voluminous it is in respect to another one. You of course can argue, but it´s until the real image appears, in comparison to another "known", that you really can say which one has less volume or projection. In that 3D drawing it´s clearly seen.
