What about the t-95?

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.

I disagree you only have to look at every instance where Russian equipment has come against western equipment to see that there is a quality gap, if Russian products were up to spec then explain why Russia has been buying foreign equipment for example the French Mistral class ships.
 
I disagree you only have to look at every instance where Russian equipment has come against western equipment to see that there is a quality gap, if Russian products were up to spec then explain why Russia has been buying foreign equipment for example the French Mistral class ships.

The Mistral ,IMO is about politics. Putin needs Europe on his side. The quality gap isn't that straightforward-Ivan almost always sells downgraded equipment,what they themselves call money equipment so as not so advertise the capabilities of their armaments.
IIRC,NATO conducted post USSR firing tests on T 72s and were shocked. Not one was penetrated by the full range of standard 120 mm ammo! I've seen the report:will link when I have time.
The Typhoon,the largest sub is a titanium double hulled 48,000 ton monster. It was built in the 70s and can dive deeper than anything in the West.
Look at the havoc armour tests. 12.7mm to 14.5mm.
Its in Russian. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj9hdmEeBY"]Mi-28 armor tests - YouTube[/ame]

Like I said American advertising has shaped our worldview on such matters,especially GW 1. All those t 72s turned inside out by the Abrams,CNN kept broadcasting continuously. What they didn't tell us Saddam's tanks were wayyyy underarmoured compared to the real deal and their rounds were at least 2 decades old.
We could go on and on and contrast the f22 and the su35 and the ka52 vs Apache but this isn't the thread. My point is Ivan doesn't control Hollywood.
 
I don't care how great or crappy equipment is...they are tools. It's the troops, the training, and the terrain. The Russians can have their T95 or whatever. I've got my M1A2SEP (well my army does as I'm not a tanker) and that's the way it is. On my end, we soldiers will find a way to kill the enemy, as I'm sure they'll do the same if the balloon ever goes up between us. Let's seriously hope that never happens...
 
Military Hardware

Not to get to far off target. Having worked as an aerospace engineer in general our electronics and signal processing (what makes drones, missiles, bombs, shells accurate) is for the most part superior to that of the rest, including Russia. We have the money for the R&D and the superior scientist and engineers. Weapons such as the M1A2, F-22 Raptor are still 1st rate. Also our small arms and communications systems are constantly under development.
 
Not to get to far off target. Having worked as an aerospace engineer in general our electronics and signal processing (what makes drones, missiles, bombs, shells accurate) is for the most part superior to that of the rest, including Russia. We have the money for the R&D and the superior scientist and engineers. Weapons such as the M1A2, F-22 Raptor are still 1st rate. Also our small arms and communications systems are constantly under development.

I am not sure I agree with that highlighted part.
There is no doubt you have the money but having worked as both a Chemistry major and a Chemical Engineer in the USA I can honestly say your scientists and engineers are no better or worse than anyone elses.

The problem with having all the money you need for R&D is that you end up with a very inefficient system which flows through into final product costs.
 
response

I am not sure I agree with that highlighted part.
There is no doubt you have the money but having worked as both a Chemistry major and a Chemical Engineer in the USA I can honestly say your scientists and engineers are no better or worse than anyone elses.

The problem with having all the money you need for R&D is that you end up with a very inefficient system which flows through into final product costs.

It not a one on one thing. The European, Indian, etc. engineer is as good as his US counterpart. It's the pool of scientist and engineers in the US that is still the worlds largest. Giant government think tanks such as Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, etc.. exist that are hard for other nations to complete with.
I've worked on projects involving high overhead. It can be taxing, but can at times mitigate issues via simulation and testing on very complex hardware - systems. It's a fine line knowing when to move ahead. Also the complexity of some of these systems is incredible. I.E. An AWAKs radar maps out targets from an aircraft flying at high altitude to an area of meters allowing it to map out and identity enemy vehicles even in wooded - urban terrain.
 
With roughly 10% of the Russian military modernized it's obvious to see why the T 95 never exited the development stage, as of now there is no real need by the Russian Defense Ministry for such a tank.

Roughly stating Russia could develop a handful of highly advanced models on par with Western standards. However it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to field any.

With that type of technological innovation in a AFV, like it's western counter parts Russia would not sell via export a fully developed T 95. So even developing for export would be an unwise expenditure when the T 90 S suite that need just fine.
 
Is this thread dead? The armata is out and its def a development of the t-95. Its 125mm gun has 20% more velocity than the latest German 120mm and it will soon come with a MASSIVE 152MM GUN.
image.jpg


Does anyone know what that means? It'll be able to penetrate a meter of armour!! I hope some forumers on this thread have changed their minds.
 
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 edited:
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
(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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top