What about the t-95? - Page 12




 
--
 
May 20th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I think you are being a bit over zealous there as it is still just a prototype as demonstrated by its write ups which say "it will have" and "could become" etc. which are generally terms that say it does not currently have.

Also the Armata line is simply a universal chassis which the plan to build an IFV, MBT and SPG group of vehicles from as such they are not planning to mount a 152mm gun to the MBT but rather build a 152mm SPG.

Further this we still don't know good the thing is as it has been lightened for speed and maneuverability which must affect its survivability as well as increase its maintenance costs and time due to the stresses from a large gun on a light chassis also we know nothing of its optics.

Next up it really does not matter what this vehicle can do if the Russians do not improve the quality of its personnel, it could be the greatest armoured vehicle in production but if manned by Ivan the vodka salesman it will still struggle against an L2A7 driven by Hans the professional Tanker.

I do however like the turret idea although I wonder what effect an unmanned turret would have on the vehicles vision and response times as well as the critical thinking ability of the vehicle as a whole but it is not hard to see how this could lead to unmanned fighting vehicles in the future.

I would also like to point out that the newly developed 2S35 Koalitsiya 152mm SPG's are built on the T-90 chassis not the Armata so there may not be a 152mm armata based SPG at all.
Last of all on today battlefield the electronics - smarts. How well do the Russians hold up in this critical category? Improving ones ability to shoot on the move over rough terrain, improving the range. I know this is dated but to prove a point: this is primarily why the Abrams stood out in the Gulf War against their adversary (the adversaries tanks were built by who).
May 20th, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
this is primarily why the Abrams stood out in the Gulf War against their adversary (the adversaries tanks were built by who).
(Disclaimer: this is an total arm chair general comment from me, all active and retired military you have my consent to smack me across the face here, this is somewhat coming from the perspective of an engineering point of view, Thank you.)

I agree and disagree on your point, the Gulf War was mainly last generation export models of Soviet armor against tanks like the Challenger and Abrams, meant to counter current Soviet MBTs not cut down value pack export models. For instance how ISIS captured Export Abrams with almost no problem.

Proving your training argument spot on, tanks are idle tools without trained crews to use them.

However let us look as this in terms of Russian armored development throughout history.

  • First to use mostly reliable diesel when western tanks did not.

  • First to have effective sloped armor when homogenous armor was the beeze neeze on a production tank during a time of war.
  • First to have equipped any mass produced tank with an smooth bore gun ever, scaring NATO designers into adopting the design their selves, now it's everywhere.
  • One of the first to produce and trail a production tank with a turbine engine, and also learned it's disadvantages. Long supply chains needed, catches fire easily when invading Chechnya ect.
  • Also first nation to build an effective active protection system on any tank, and when did they do this? 21st century? ... Wrong, they did it back in the good ole' USSR!
  • First nation to make effective APFSDS rounds to go with those new smoothbores built in the 60's.
Point is, technically a T 90 MS the most modern version of Russian tank, can outrange, yes outrange and potentially hit a Leopard 2 A7, an M1A2 Sep ll. And even an Challenger 2...


Because that 2A46M can fire ATGM's out of the barrel without modifications before hand out effectively ranging all ammunition types on most MBTs.



Within 18 seconds this warhead can be delivered up to 6 KM.


Point is... Like America or Germany, outside of NATO they don't sell the BEST machines. Russia more or less sticks to this doctrine.


Iraq did not have modernized T 80us. Nor modern training.


Russia can make good tanks, Russia has made good tanks, Russia is making good tanks. Russia also has good tankers, but like in the Chechnya debacle it was poor communication and leadership that led Russian armored forces to disaster.


During their invasion of Georgia, outdated 60's technology trumped the Georgian model NATO forces. Why? Good tankers soldiers and pilots were not molested by bad leadership and bad communications networks. And could do their job. Like NATO machines, paper stats are for salesmen, training budgets are almost more important as the gear in any professional army. And that will never change.



Also Georgia was tiny, but hey, Grenada anyone?
May 20th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian

During their invasion of Georgia, outdated 60's technology trumped the Georgian model NATO forces. Why? Good tankers soldiers and pilots were not molested by bad leadership and bad communications networks. And could do their job. Like NATO machines, paper stats are for salesmen, training budgets are almost more important as the gear in any professional army. And that will never change.



Also Georgia was tiny, but hey, Grenada anyone?
While agree wholeheartedly with the training comments I would point out that it was Stalin who said "Quantity has a quality of its own", throw sufficient numbers of average troops at a fixed quantity of the worlds best troops and numbers will win in the end as the Russians have already proven.

However that being said these days there is not the political preparedness to do that anymore so Russia has been improving the quality of its forces but it still suffers from a reputation of being exceedingly unprofessional and placing physical strength over intelligence.
--
May 21st, 2015  
kenyannoobie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
(Disclaimer: this is an total arm chair general comment from me, all active and retired military you have my consent to smack me across the face here, this is somewhat coming from the perspective of an engineering point of view, Thank you.)

I agree and disagree on your point, the Gulf War was mainly last generation export models of Soviet armor against tanks like the Challenger and Abrams, meant to counter current Soviet MBTs not cut down value pack export models. For instance how ISIS captured Export Abrams with almost no problem.

Proving your training argument spot on, tanks are idle tools without trained crews to use them.

However let us look as this in terms of Russian armored development throughout history.

  • First to use mostly reliable diesel when western tanks did not.

  • First to have effective sloped armor when homogenous armor was the beeze neeze on a production tank during a time of war.
  • First to have equipped any mass produced tank with an smooth bore gun ever, scaring NATO designers into adopting the design their selves, now it's everywhere.
  • One of the first to produce and trail a production tank with a turbine engine, and also learned it's disadvantages. Long supply chains needed, catches fire easily when invading Chechnya ect.
  • Also first nation to build an effective active protection system on any tank, and when did they do this? 21st century? ... Wrong, they did it back in the good ole' USSR!
  • First nation to make effective APFSDS rounds to go with those new smoothbores built in the 60's.
Point is, technically a T 90 MS the most modern version of Russian tank, can outrange, yes outrange and potentially hit a Leopard 2 A7, an M1A2 Sep ll. And even an Challenger 2...


Because that 2A46M can fire ATGM's out of the barrel without modifications before hand out effectively ranging all ammunition types on most MBTs.



Within 18 seconds this warhead can be delivered up to 6 KM.


Point is... Like America or Germany, outside of NATO they don't sell the BEST machines. Russia more or less sticks to this doctrine.


Iraq did not have modernized T 80us. Nor modern training.


Russia can make good tanks, Russia has made good tanks, Russia is making good tanks. Russia also has good tankers, but like in the Chechnya debacle it was poor communication and leadership that led Russian armored forces to disaster.


During their invasion of Georgia, outdated 60's technology trumped the Georgian model NATO forces. Why? Good tankers soldiers and pilots were not molested by bad leadership and bad communications networks. And could do their job. Like NATO machines, paper stats are for salesmen, training budgets are almost more important as the gear in any professional army. And that will never change.



Also Georgia was tiny, but hey, Grenada anyone?
Absolutely nothing to add! You've said it perfectly. One question though;why is everyone so convinced its just a POS? I've given my own opinion-what's yours?
May 21st, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Simply because we have seen all this before with Russian equipment, on paper the greatest things since sliced bread on the battlefield smoldering ruins.

It is up to the Russians to produce something that can convince us they have moved on from the Soviet era thinking in both design of equipment and in the training of their personnel.
May 21st, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
While agree wholeheartedly with the training comments I would point out that it was Stalin who said "Quantity has a quality of its own", throw sufficient numbers of average troops at a fixed quantity of the worlds best troops and numbers will win in the end as the Russians have already proven.

However that being said these days there is not the political preparedness to do that anymore so Russia has been improving the quality of its forces but it still suffers from a reputation of being exceedingly unprofessional and placing physical strength over intelligence.
Saddam had considerably more tanks in the gulf war than did the Coalition yet the tank battles were completely one sided.

The situation was a bit different in WW2. Where the T-34 were produced at a rate of ~ 3 to 1 over that of Germany tanks. The Red Army was able to overwhelm the Germans with numbers because the tank could compete technologically with the generally superior German armor. It wasn't that far behind.

In those days everything was manual and the AFV did not have processor controlled target acquisition. This is not true of modern tanks and that is where tanks like the Abrams will shine.
May 21st, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

It is up to the Russians to produce something that can convince us they have moved on from the Soviet era thinking in both design of equipment and in the training of their personnel.

The problem is almost every modern MBT in Western Society is produced from Cold War employment and experience.

However Western Nations like the U.S., U.K., Germany France and Israel all have something Russia does not.

Ample funding for the tanks they do have.

Russia can make amazing machines sure, but like it's new Sukhoi Stealth Fighter it may be in production, but Russia cannot afford to deploy it in sizable numbers.

The T 90 MS for example will never enter large scale service under current circumstances.

Also Russia is not, like the U.S. willing to export it's top shelf armored vehicles and technology. Regardless of any sales pitch.

At the end of the day, Russia's good tankers maybe smaller in quantity, but also held back for obvious reasons.

In a largely conscript military, they may assume they need all the experienced trainers they can muster for future units.

In any sense that stands true, having a $5 million war machine is one thing, having $30 million in defense training for that machine annually is something else entirely.