What about the t-95? - Page 10




 
--
 
March 23rd, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Well here is my problem with the T-95.
1) It has been "rumoured" for at least the last 10 years it is just dragging on and now falls into the category of believe it when I see it.

2) We are constantly fed the line about the next great Russian weapon as a challenge for whatever the best western counterpart is yet every time you see it on a battlefield it is a smoldering ruin, Russia needs to prove that this isn't just another backward bit of kit that it is over-hyping.

3) The history of the last 50 years shows Russian armour to be lacking in quality optics and fire control gear but producing above average guns the problem with this is that if you can not see and target your opposition as well as he can then the best gun in the world wont stop you becoming toast.

So while I have no doubt that the Russians can produce a competitive MBT I have grave doubts that they can do it with an indigenous design and supply chain.

As for Putin's comment well I hate to break it to him but Russia's military of recent years could never be described as "the army of good enough" and I can't see how providing low tech troops with high tech gear is going to help much.
March 26th, 2013  
nero1234
 

Topic: First Time I Ever Had To Think Of Tankers As (Sp)Rocket Scientists


Hi MontyB,

Hm! Trouble is, and this is the point you all seem to be missing, itís not the Russian military who keep trying to tell you how good the T-95 is, itís people outside the military.

You never found it strange or perhaps you didnít even notice, that shortly after Marshal Igor Sergeyev made his somewhat indiscreet, comment, about Russia now having an MBT in the T-95, that was so superior to everything else, the rest didnít matter, that he was shortly after this and very quietly, replaced as Russian Minister of Defence.

Ever since Igor Segeyevís little speech, the Russian military and government has done everything it could to publicly discredit everything to do with the T-95 program. Perhaps you also missed the comments where they claimed the T-80U M2 ďChiorny OriolĒ demonstrated at Omsk 97, was an incomplete prototype; amongst other things, claiming the T-80U M2, as demonstrated, had an empty shell for a turret. Funny thing is, the footage of that demonstration shows the gun to be fully stabilised and what do you know, there is other footage available on the web, of this very same tank, firing rounds out of itís ďdummyĒ gun on a gunnery range or two. And everybody swallowed the line hook line and sinker.

Iím not going to go through all this again, but the development series goes like this T-80U M1 BARS TANK, systems technology proving platform for the hydraulic driveline and a few minor associated sub-systems. T-80U M2 first prototype fully functional MBT with the X-form hydraulic engine, driveline and integrated suspension. T-95 fully functional final format MBT with the same X-form hydraulic engine, driveline and integrated suspension; the first of the Next Generation Land Warfare Equipment of the Russian Army.

What the hell do you think made them take such a radical departure from their previous practice of multiple MBT types and powering formats, and go to a single platform scenario, for all future tracked combatants in a program now called ďArmataĒ, and more recently, decide to do an equivalent single platform scenario for wheeled equipment as well? All of this was in the original documentation they evaluated in 96/7; itís not new, itís just progressing as per the original proposal and fellas, youíve got no idea just how good the total Armata program makes the resulting mobile assault group.

Tell me, if you now had an MBT that could reliably fight from Russia into Germany, without re-fuelling, wouldnít you want to keep it a secret too? How many times would you have to refuel an M1A2 Abrams to do the same distance? Last I heard, that great big lump of iron takes 8 gallons just to light up the power plant.

I must be missing something here. Where exactly, did you see a late model Russian tank, with a Russian crew, a smouldering ruin on a battlefield?

Youíre just lucky Putin stepped in and classified this work when he did; even so, they had enough information to make big advances in these areas and if you know what to look for, they certainly did. How is it you can so easily condemn Russian engineering, when even the American Navy is still only talking about Titanium hulled vessels; the Russianís have been routinely building submarines with Titanium hulls since the early sixties or donít you remember those little Alfa (NATO designation) SSN? It took the CIA 15 years to convince the American Navy Russian shipbuilders could build Titanium hulled submarines in a ship building environment, simply because Navy wouldnít accept, the Russian engineers could do something the Americanís couldnít; they still canít, for that matter. By the way, where do you think Kelly Johnson got the Titanium to build the SR-71 Blackbirds? Russia. I also remember, mustíve been way back in about 1980, when I was fooling around with helicopters, the Russians were building at least one model of Mil Attack Helicopter, with a single piece ceramic lower fuselage for ballistic protection. Say what you like, but pray you never end up in a shootout with current technology Russian equipment, crewed by Russians.

Low tech troops with high tech gear? What do you think is the average educational level of American Tank crews? I doubt theyíre a bunch of rocket scientists.
nero1234
March 27th, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
If you want my personal opinion I doubt the Russian military could make it across the Polish border without serious casualties so I think Germany is safe as for the Titanium hulls well they are a symptom of Russia's problems sure they can make great hulls but just about everything else that goes into them is 30 years out of date and no matter how good their hulls are if your maintenance is shoddy then you have problems.

I have never claimed that Russia can not build good weapons systems but the fact is that they are let down by corruption, poor training, morale and in my opinion a lack of professionalism and until you can prove to me that the bulk of the Russian military is not an army of conscripts with AK's then I am not going to be impressed by shiny tin cans further to this I do not believe they are industrially capable of the hi-tech quality production needed to make and maintain quality weapons systems.

As for the average educational level of US tank crews I wouldn't have a clue however I do know that the training they are given is a fair bit more than a few low tech classes carried out in a vodka induced haze.
--
March 27th, 2013  
lolwhassup
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Low tech troops with high tech gear? What do you think is the average educational level of American Tank crews? I doubt theyíre a bunch of rocket scientists.
nero1234
High school diploma at the minimum, many of them like a lot of American servicemen have college degrees simply because the Army is paying for them.

As for the training they get, they get decent tank training, and then when they reach their actual army unit, they get much more additional training depending on the type of armor unit they are assigned to, and the type of vehicle they are in.
March 27th, 2013  
nero1234
 

Topic: Spend too much time looking back and the future will overwhelm you


Are MontyB,

Disappointing: what, no comments about the departure of Igor Sergeyev as Russian Minister of Defence; disinformation programs related to the T-80U M2 and T-95?

Incredible, he we have the case that the Russians assembled 16 test engines from scratch and two fully functional MBTs (T-80U M1 BARS TANK & T-80U M2) and the latter being demonstrated at Omsk 97, a sales Expo of all things and all this done in not much more than a year and then actually getting a completely radical MBT accepted for production (T-95) in a continuance program in no more than three more years and all you can do is fall back on the pre-Putin era rhetoric of Vodka swilling conscripts with AKs and poor training programs. And lets not forget, the two T-95test units did 1700 engine hours in the Yurga proving grounds and they didn't break 'em; that sounds like a pretty good standard of engineering to me.

Just how long do you think it would take for the US military, for example, to develop a completely new MBT type and get it accepted for production? And in this question, I do mean completely new MBT type, there is very little that is old school about the T-95, it's systems and how it operates.

nero1234
March 27th, 2013  
brinktk
 
 
I see all these comments about equipment and capability....the fact of the matter is that any piece of equipment is only as good as the crew that operates it.

I wonder how many days a year an average Russian conscript gets training in ANY type of tracked vehicle against a near peer type opposition force...? How many days in the field does that soldier spend a year fighting in Brigade sized maneuvers or larger. What's their retention rate within the ranks which keeps the institutional experience of an organization highly proficient?

Now ask the same questions of their potential opponents...


The T-95 certainly looks like it's an impressive system...I will be concerned about it when the Russian military can get their corruption under control, their training in line, and their institutional experience at a level where they aren't reineventing the wheel every year with each new group of conscripts. Going into the Russian Army as a conscript is almost as bad a prison as I understand it...Until that changes, I imagine the Russians will get quite bloodied in any major confrontation they may have in the future with a professionally trained army.
March 27th, 2013  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Are MontyB,

Disappointing: what, no comments about the departure of Igor Sergeyev as Russian Minister of Defence; disinformation programs related to the T-80U M2 and T-95?

Incredible, he we have the case that the Russians assembled 16 test engines from scratch and two fully functional MBTs (T-80U M1 BARS TANK & T-80U M2) and the latter being demonstrated at Omsk 97, a sales Expo of all things and all this done in not much more than a year and then actually getting a completely radical MBT accepted for production (T-95) in a continuance program in no more than three more years and all you can do is fall back on the pre-Putin era rhetoric of Vodka swilling conscripts with AKs and poor training programs. And lets not forget, the two T-95test units did 1700 engine hours in the Yurga proving grounds and they didn't break 'em; that sounds like a pretty good standard of engineering to me.

Just how long do you think it would take for the US military, for example, to develop a completely new MBT type and get it accepted for production? And in this question, I do mean completely new MBT type, there is very little that is old school about the T-95, it's systems and how it operates.

nero1234
No offense but I really don't care whether the defence minister has resigned or they have resurrected Rasputin the T-95 has been nothing but vapourware since 1990 when it was first rumoured to exist so lets be honest here this is a 23 year development that has so resulted in a confirmed power plant for an unspecified vehicle most likely an upgrade for the T-90 which is considered underpowered.

Don't get me wrong eventually the Russians will develop a T-95 just as I have no doubt they will make a T-200 it is just the development cycle but at the moment I doubt it is anything more than a design concept still if you can roll out a few operational pictures of one (ie. not an unspecified barrel poking out from under a tarpaulin) I will take the T-95 more seriously.
July 24th, 2013  
udaka
 
On my views, in four base elements of tank :" firepower, mobility, protection and firing accuray." The most importing is protection. Due to the hardship enviroment on the battleground. if your tank be " one shoot one killed " by anti-tank missiles,

basically, the type of tank are rubblish steels.

post a vedio a tank hit by an anti-tank missile:

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTc1MjA5MDgw.html
July 24th, 2013  
udaka
 
In this vedio, why the anti tank missile fly foward like a snake.?the path of flight is so??
September 13th, 2014  
kenyannoobie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Hi MontyB,

Hm! Trouble is, and this is the point you all seem to be missing, itís not the Russian military who keep trying to tell you how good the T-95 is, itís people outside the military.

You never found it strange or perhaps you didnít even notice, that shortly after Marshal Igor Sergeyev made his somewhat indiscreet, comment, about Russia now having an MBT in the T-95, that was so superior to everything else, the rest didnít matter, that he was shortly after this and very quietly, replaced as Russian Minister of Defence.

Ever since Igor Segeyevís little speech, the Russian military and government has done everything it could to publicly discredit everything to do with the T-95 program. Perhaps you also missed the comments where they claimed the T-80U M2 ďChiorny OriolĒ demonstrated at Omsk 97, was an incomplete prototype; amongst other things, claiming the T-80U M2, as demonstrated, had an empty shell for a turret. Funny thing is, the footage of that demonstration shows the gun to be fully stabilised and what do you know, there is other footage available on the web, of this very same tank, firing rounds out of itís ďdummyĒ gun on a gunnery range or two. And everybody swallowed the line hook line and sinker.

Iím not going to go through all this again, but the development series goes like this T-80U M1 BARS TANK, systems technology proving platform for the hydraulic driveline and a few minor associated sub-systems. T-80U M2 first prototype fully functional MBT with the X-form hydraulic engine, driveline and integrated suspension. T-95 fully functional final format MBT with the same X-form hydraulic engine, driveline and integrated suspension; the first of the Next Generation Land Warfare Equipment of the Russian Army.

What the hell do you think made them take such a radical departure from their previous practice of multiple MBT types and powering formats, and go to a single platform scenario, for all future tracked combatants in a program now called ďArmataĒ, and more recently, decide to do an equivalent single platform scenario for wheeled equipment as well? All of this was in the original documentation they evaluated in 96/7; itís not new, itís just progressing as per the original proposal and fellas, youíve got no idea just how good the total Armata program makes the resulting mobile assault group.

Tell me, if you now had an MBT that could reliably fight from Russia into Germany, without re-fuelling, wouldnít you want to keep it a secret too? How many times would you have to refuel an M1A2 Abrams to do the same distance? Last I heard, that great big lump of iron takes 8 gallons just to light up the power plant.

I must be missing something here. Where exactly, did you see a late model Russian tank, with a Russian crew, a smouldering ruin on a battlefield?

Youíre just lucky Putin stepped in and classified this work when he did; even so, they had enough information to make big advances in these areas and if you know what to look for, they certainly did. How is it you can so easily condemn Russian engineering, when even the American Navy is still only talking about Titanium hulled vessels; the Russianís have been routinely building submarines with Titanium hulls since the early sixties or donít you remember those little Alfa (NATO designation) SSN? It took the CIA 15 years to convince the American Navy Russian shipbuilders could build Titanium hulled submarines in a ship building environment, simply because Navy wouldnít accept, the Russian engineers could do something the Americanís couldnít; they still canít, for that matter. By the way, where do you think Kelly Johnson got the Titanium to build the SR-71 Blackbirds? Russia. I also remember, mustíve been way back in about 1980, when I was fooling around with helicopters, the Russians were building at least one model of Mil Attack Helicopter, with a single piece ceramic lower fuselage for ballistic protection. Say what you like, but pray you never end up in a shootout with current technology Russian equipment, crewed by Russians.

Low tech troops with high tech gear? What do you think is the average educational level of American Tank crews? I doubt theyíre a bunch of rocket scientists.
nero1234
It seems the t 95 became the Armata: what happened to the 152 mm gun? Throughout this thread people have been denigrating Russian equipment and personnel capabilities.IMO,its the power of American advertising. We're all unknowingly programmed by the movies we watch and books we read.