What about the t-95? - Page 3




 
--
 
April 29th, 2009  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinnr
Amen brother. A version of the M8 Armored Gun System with an urban survival kit would be a great asset to ground forces. And it has the advantage of fitting in with modern Army doctrine.

We seem to be off topic though.
Quite. Atleast we stayed in the topic of armor.
May 4th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotcha1234
The t-95 is still in development,so basically it could be a tank stronger than abrams/leo2a6/merkava or it could be a total flop.

The russian engineers surely prefer roundness in turret designs while the rest of the world prefer a triangular turret.

What do you expect from the t-95?
Ok lets get something straight Russia is not developing ANY new tank, the russian military can barely afford to feed their troops, they dont have money to buy enough T-90s and suddenly they get R&D funds to develop a new machine?

The "russian engineers" dont have technical knowledge to create proper basic armor (why do you think russian tanks carry ERAs) and suddenly they get a scientific basis to make one? With what science, with what money?

Russia is going to be using T-80s and 90s for another 20 years at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
What you need is not a light tank, its a medium tank. somwhere in the 25-35 ton catagory. You must have an active protection system for this thing. Probably a 105mm gun is enough, provided with the correct ammunition for urban warfare.
Any tank in that range will have to have an unmanned turret, otherwise you dont get enough armor for it to survive an RPG farting its way.
May 4th, 2009  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Ok lets get something straight Russia is not developing ANY new tank, the russian military can barely afford to feed their troops, they dont have money to buy enough T-90s and suddenly they get R&D funds to develop a new machine?

The "russian engineers" dont have technical knowledge to create proper basic armor (why do you think russian tanks carry ERAs) and suddenly they get a scientific basis to make one? With what science, with what money?

Russia is going to be using T-80s and 90s for another 20 years at least.



Any tank in that range will have to have an unmanned turret, otherwise you dont get enough armor for it to survive an RPG farting its way.
I disagree. You don't necessarily need an unmanned turret. The M8 is the perfect system, just a few add-on's and it's a go. And going unmanned makes it a moot effort, the Stryker MGS has an unmanned 105mm, and is much lighter than a conventional tank, which makes it into a death trap and it is plagued with problems like none other. There's are reason the US military has tried to stay away from auto-loading and unmanned armored vehicles.
--
May 4th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
I disagree. You don't necessarily need an unmanned turret. The M8 is the perfect system, just a few add-on's and it's a go. And going unmanned makes it a moot effort, the Stryker MGS has an unmanned 105mm, and is much lighter than a conventional tank, which makes it into a death trap and it is plagued with problems like none other. There's are reason the US military has tried to stay away from auto-loading and unmanned armored vehicles.
Both the XM8 and Stryker are deathtraps, US military never did an autoloder because it makes no visible difference in loading times, it does save loads of weight on armor though.
May 4th, 2009  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Both the XM8 and Stryker are deathtraps, US military never did an autoloder because it makes no visible difference in loading times, it does save loads of weight on armor though.
The M8 Buford has yet to be used in combat, and the Stryker has it's place, just not as a Gun System (the M113 has a thinner armor than the Stryker). I would like to know what basis you say the M8 is a deathtrap? What stats, combat reports, articles?

Ok, so you save a few tons on weight, but now your vehicle is a more vulnerable machine, there's nothing to protect the gun system itself and it is more inclined to a mechinal failure, and now because the system is external someone has to leave the vehicles protection, and expose themselves to evemy fire to fix it. (As I said is the case with the Stryker MGS unmanned turret)

The US military never went with an autoloader because autoloaders are unreliable, dangerous, can't operate without power, and can be slow. A human loader can load a round in 11 seconds, is extremely reliable and provides extra security and man power. If there was no visable differace between the two, then the US military would have opted for autoloaders, and autoloaders don't save weight, they add weight. Unmanned turrets supposedly save weight.
May 4th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
a human loader can do better than 11 seconds. id say 6-7. autoloaders are not bad it has diffrent advantages. it depends on the operational theory for tanks in a specific country. it also depends on your level of training...yes, a good human loader can load 8 rouns per minute...but that isent the case in every military.
May 4th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
The M8 Buford has yet to be used in combat, and the Stryker has it's place, just not as a Gun System (the M113 has a thinner armor than the Stryker). I would like to know what basis you say the M8 is a deathtrap? What stats, combat reports, articles?
I'll dig it up but i'm against any thin skinned vehicle to be used in direct fire support, Buford has 3 armor packages, the thickest gives frontal protection against 30mm, you go out with something like that you get screwed by the first RPG round that gets lucky.

Any direct fire support system thats not at least 2nd gen tank protection in respect to armor is a death trap since you'll be coming up against tanks, ATGMs and the like whether you like it or not, there's no need to see it in combat, we know its parameters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
Ok, so you save a few tons on weight, but now your vehicle is a more vulnerable machine, there's nothing to protect the gun system itself and it is more inclined to a mechinal failure, and now because the system is external someone has to leave the vehicles protection, and expose themselves to evemy fire to fix it. (As I said is the case with the Stryker MGS unmanned turret)
Granted we (Poland) use our own autoloaders which are better than Russian ones but even the oldest T-72s in our service are more likely to lose a thread, autloaders are pretty idiot proof and reliable by now and with a high mechanical culture of US army its even less likely to get bumpy, also you can still load from the inside, even in an unmanned turret (see austrian kuirrassier).

As for those few tons, you dont get a few tons, a turret comprises depending on the tank between 30 and 45% total weight, by unmanned you cut that by half and can put it into armor which basically means you get a vehicle thats almost an MBT in armor protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
The US military never went with an autoloader because autoloaders are unreliable,
Myth, they do break down in Russia but its because Russian army has maintainance procedures that comprise mainly of kicking stuff till it works, if you abuse your hardware it will fail no matter how reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
dangerous,
How are they dangerous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
can't operate without power,
Neither can ships, plains, tanks, lights, radios ... You get the point, besides if the tank lost power loading your gun will be the last of your problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
and can be slow. A human loader can load a round in 11 seconds, is extremely reliable and provides extra security and man power. If there was no visable differace between the two, then the US military would have opted for autoloaders, and autoloaders don't save weight, they add weight. Unmanned turrets supposedly save weight.
Thats true, initially human loader is faster however he's also completely unable to keep the rate of fire for long, they get tired, can get wounded or killed, in respect of efficiency both auto and human loaders have their pros and cons.

As for the weight, i'm not going to go in depth you've got Sherman for that, suffice to say that using autoloaders saves about 10 tons of weight in soviet tanks.

In an MBT an autoloader is arguable due to various issues such as smaller ammo capacity but in a light tank its a must in order to provide free weight for the armor, otherwise you get an M8, a deathtrap.
May 5th, 2009  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
I'll dig it up but i'm against any thin skinned vehicle to be used in direct fire support, Buford has 3 armor packages, the thickest gives frontal protection against 30mm, you go out with something like that you get screwed by the first RPG round that gets lucky.

Any direct fire support system thats not at least 2nd gen tank protection in respect to armor is a death trap since you'll be coming up against tanks, ATGMs and the like whether you like it or not, there's no need to see it in combat, we know its parameters.
I've seen the M8's stats sheet, and Level III armor is guaranteed against light ATGM's, additionally the US possess the ability to make additional armor packages for it. If we can take a civilian make truck, slap armor plate and a V hull on it, and make it worth enough to withstand IED's, I am sure we can modified the M8.

Quote:
Granted we (Poland) use our own autoloaders which are better than Russian ones but even the oldest T-72s in our service are more likely to lose a thread, autloaders are pretty idiot proof and reliable by now and with a high mechanical culture of US army its even less likely to get bumpy, also you can still load from the inside, even in an unmanned turret (see austrian kuirrassier).
There are major design differances in US and older Soveit armor. So when an auto-loader jams, who unjams it? Gunner? Driver? TC? Every other position has a job to preform. The US has a loader, who's job is totally devoted to the gun and loading it, minus a loader, you lose that man to preform position specific jobs. Also, the kurassier doesn't have an unmanned turret, it just has an autoloader. And armor protection for the kurassier is only garunteed against 20mm rounds.

Quote:
As for those few tons, you dont get a few tons, a turret comprises depending on the tank between 30 and 45% total weight, by unmanned you cut that by half and can put it into armor which basically means you get a vehicle thats almost an MBT in armor protection.
With an unmanned turret you lose weight, autoloaders add weight. And with your example with the Kurassier you don't gain any protection, if you want a light tank you don't add armor protection on par with a MBT's, you armor it to it's specfici threats (Light ATGM's, other light tanks, ect...). You do realize an MBT like the Abrams weigh's 70 tons, which requires a 1500hp engine. That's alot of weight to throw on a light vehicles chassis.

Quote:
Myth, they do break down in Russia but its because Russian army has maintainance procedures that comprise mainly of kicking stuff till it works, if you abuse your hardware it will fail no matter how reliable.
It can't be myth if it's true. For some reason I don't see a tank crew kicking an auto loader. I'm going more along the lines that the Russian's produce cheap crap, because they don't plan on it being around long. As shown with past conflict, both man and machine are expendable to the Russian military. Umm, all hardware is abused, it is abused in normal operation. I'm sure if the Russian's built more reliable, and better hardware and preformed preventive maintenance on it regularly they'd be better off.

Quote:
How are they dangerous?
I've seen and heard more than one persons account on autoloaders, personnel loaded into the gun, loss of fingers, mechanical failure leading to injuries. Rounds damaged upon loading, damage upon unloading spilling powder in the turret.

Quote:
Neither can ships, plains, tanks, lights, radios ... You get the point, besides if the tank lost power loading your gun will be the last of your problems.
That wasn't my point. I was saying unless you have a UAAPU, you can't run an autoloader if you vehicle is off or damaged. In US designed tanks, they're designed to fight in NBC conditions. If EMP knocked out an M1's electo-system's it can still operate. If my vehicles power was disable, my one of my main concern's is vehicle and crew defense/safety, so yes for me loading my tanks gun would be a priority.

Quote:
Thats true, initially human loader is faster however he's also completely unable to keep the rate of fire for long, they get tired, can get wounded or killed, in respect of efficiency both auto and human loaders have their pros and cons.

As for the weight, i'm not going to go in depth you've got Sherman for that, suffice to say that using autoloaders saves about 10 tons of weight in soviet tanks.

In an MBT an autoloader is arguable due to various issues such as smaller ammo capacity but in a light tank its a must in order to provide free weight for the armor, otherwise you get an M8, a deathtrap.
With proper training, and doctrine a loader can keep up his job with ease. Especially in today's armor warfare, tank on tank is less and less, and more on anti-infantry and light skinned targets. And yes each has it's pro's and con's, but for the US military the autoloader had too many con's.

Taking an MBT and adding an autoloader adds weight, unless that MBT was designed from the ground up to have an autoloader in it, such as the Merkava. You can't add something like that without adding weight. Now how do you configure that? Soviet armor has always been lighter than Western armor, autoloader or not, we just tend to have more armor, which in turn adds weight. How does having a human loader add weight?

Well yes, you diminished ammo capacity, crew space, and avaible upgrade space. Well I would agree an auto-loader, would be a good choice on a light tank, but it's not the vehicles focal point, armor and speed are. FYI the M8 has an cylinder drum autoloader.

Did you know in 04' the Army was looking for an AFV to be put into service with the 82nd Airborne Division to replace the M551, due to the need for of a rapidly deployable, sustained, AFV with appropriate firepower. The M8 Buford has been being used as a intermittent solution to the issue, and has been considered as a permanent solution.
May 5th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
I've seen the M8's stats sheet, and Level III armor is guaranteed against light ATGM's, additionally the US possess the ability to make additional armor packages for it. If we can take a civilian make truck, slap armor plate and a V hull on it, and make it worth enough to withstand IED's, I am sure we can modified the M8.
First i'd be carefull with IED resistant label, IED's cover a wide range of explosives and there's a difference between a bunch of mortar shells and a dozen bombs wired together, also whats a light ATGM to you? RPG-7 can be considered light and it has warheads that will murder any thin skinned vehicle, including M8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
So when an auto-loader jams, who unjams it? Gunner? Driver? TC? Every other position has a job to preform. The US has a loader, who's job is totally devoted to the gun and loading it, minus a loader, you lose that man to preform position specific jobs. Also, the kurassier doesn't have an unmanned turret, it just has an autoloader. And armor protection for the kurassier is only garunteed against 20mm rounds.
Whats with the jamming? I've seen the autoloader jam twice in my life, both of these were in oldest T-72s with old unmaintained autoloaders, the chances of a properly maintained autoloader to jam are statistically microscopical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
With an unmanned turret you lose weight, autoloaders add weight.
I see i dont get to be lazy (and yes Kuirassier was a bad example) you dont get to have an unmanned turret in a tank without an autoloader, also if you have a manned turret it needs to be larger to accomodate instruments, the ammo storage is separate adding massive volume and because the turret gets to be several times larger you need to add several times the armor so in the long run even with autoloder you lose many many tons of weight that can redirected to armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
It can't be myth if it's true. For some reason I don't see a tank crew kicking an auto loader. I'm going more along the lines that the Russian's produce cheap crap,
I was speaking metaphorically, Russians make cheap hardware but its made to last and will not break even tenth of the time the western equivalents do, the problem is that Russian army has no professional maintainance standards, prescribed regulation maintainance does not exist so even their incredibly reliable equipment turns into junk after a few years of abuse, during joint excersize with Germans our PTs has exactly two breakdowns during the 48 hour operation, Gerries had 14, thats how good Russian gear is when properly maintained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
because they don't plan on it being around long. As shown with past conflict, both man and machine are expendable to the Russian military. Umm, all hardware is abused, it is abused in normal operation. I'm sure if the Russian's built more reliable, and better hardware and preformed preventive maintenance on it regularly they'd be better off.
Let me tell you how does it look like with Polish army, a tank gets a weekly check by the platoon commander, a monthly check by the mechanic, a check before, after and during each excersize, the equipment doesnt break, during joint excersizes the Dutch, the Brits and the Germans always need mechanics in tow, we dont, Russians simply do not maintain their equipment at all, thats going to break down anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
I've seen and heard more than one persons account on autoloaders, personnel loaded into the gun, loss of fingers, mechanical failure leading to injuries. Rounds damaged upon loading, damage upon unloading spilling powder in the turret.
Personnel loaded into the gun? We cant fit there The only way you get to lose fingers is if you're on crack while loading and autoloader is physically incapable of damaging a round in the fashion that would release its contents inside the turret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
That wasn't my point. I was saying unless you have a UAAPU, you can't run an autoloader if you vehicle is off or damaged. In US designed tanks, they're designed to fight in NBC conditions. If EMP knocked out an M1's electo-system's it can still operate. If my vehicles power was disable, my one of my main concern's is vehicle and crew defense/safety, so yes for me loading my tanks gun would be a priority.
Guess what, our tanks are NBC protected too, any damage great enough to affect the autoloader physically will have wrecked the turret anyway so again you'll have much more important problems, like bailing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
With proper training, and doctrine a loader can keep up his job with ease. Especially in today's armor warfare, tank on tank is less and less, and more on anti-infantry and light skinned targets. And yes each has it's pro's and con's, but for the US military the autoloader had too many con's.
If you're making a point that the loader is superior to an autoloader i completely agree, however in light tanks all of the autoloaders cons are more than made up by the fact that unmanned small turret will give you near MBT level protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
Taking an MBT and adding an autoloader adds weight, unless that MBT was designed from the ground up to have an autoloader in it, such as the Merkava. You can't add something like that without adding weight. Now how do you configure that? Soviet armor has always been lighter than Western armor, autoloader or not, we just tend to have more armor, which in turn adds weight. How does having a human loader add weight? .
I completely agree, an autoloader decreases volume and weight only in purpose built designs, but we're arguing here that the light tank should be purpose built to include an unmanned turret with autoloading gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
Well yes, you diminished ammo capacity, crew space, and avaible upgrade space. Well I would agree an auto-loader, would be a good choice on a light tank, but it's not the vehicles focal point, armor and speed are. FYI the M8 has an cylinder drum autoloader. .
Actually the autoloader is THE most important key feature in light tanks, if light tanks proven anything throught all the wars is that their speed is worthless since they die like lemmings anyway, the answer is to minimize the turret with the use of autoloader and unmanned systems and using saved weight add armor to the hull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
Did you know in 04' the Army was looking for an AFV to be put into service with the 82nd Airborne Division to replace the M551, due to the need for of a rapidly deployable, sustained, AFV with appropriate firepower. The M8 Buford has been being used as a intermittent solution to the issue, and has been considered as a permanent solution.
Did it even enter the line? As far as i know it was cancelled.
May 7th, 2009  
FO Seaman
 
 
As far as I can see it, we are going to continue to disagree on the issues, so for our, sake and the everyone else, lets call amends and agree to disagree . This has actually been one of the funnest debates I've had in a while, you sir are a gentleman and superb debater.