What about the t-95? - Page 5




 
--
 
October 30th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
The tank version of the PAK-FA
November 4th, 2009  
danko
 
 
obviously its gonna be good
but more than anything it'll be made to be cheap for mass production
the abrams IS good but it costs way too much to buy and to maintain
still theres the everpresent question about the role of the tank in the modern battleifeld
November 5th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danko
obviously its gonna be good
Obviously? What makes it so obvious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danko
but more than anything it'll be made to be cheap for mass production
So its going to be good or cheaply mass produced? Decide buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danko
the abrams IS good but it costs way too much to buy and to maintain
Do you even know how much specific variants cost and what are the costs of utilisation and maintence to make a comment like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danko
still theres the everpresent question about the role of the tank in the modern battleifeld
No there's not, sometime in the 80s and 90s a group of armchair generals in official positions postulated that a tank is becoming obsolete, then the Desert Storm came and forced them all to STFU.

The tank was, is and will be for another 50+ years a central piece of land units of any army, its essential for large scale offensive, defensive and support actions, it fulfills roles that no other vehicle can fulfill.
--
February 11th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Want to tell me how you expect to get a 1,000lb bomb, even a smart bomb, within range of a T-95 on the move? It's operationally paired with an Attack Helicopter and somehow I doubt the Russians would deploy a force including this system, without adequate air support. They do have some pretty formidable air supremacy fighter aircraft, to say little of their mobile surface to air missile systems. No, I stand by the statement, regards a tactical nuclear device.
NERO1234
February 11th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Defuinately not a sarcastic post, go look at the Joohn Keller's MilitAeroblog and see whats on it regards, this subject.
February 11th, 2010  
nero1234
 
" Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15: "IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION "Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US. "Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles. "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles." It has to be noted DU rounds seems even more fragile than Tungsten rounds as they shatter more easily when hitting Kontakt 5 ERA . See a X-ray photo of DM53 penetrator after hitting Kontakt there : link For more infos , check Tanknet there : link Cheers .


Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
February 12th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Nero there's a lot of idiocy around here but you beat everyone by far, a tactical nuke vs a tank?

Also your quoted article is from some redneck who doesnt have a clue about Russian military or military at large, Kontakt-5 does not defeat DUs and T-95 and Black Eagle tanks do not exist even as designs as far as we know and they definitely did not exist in any form in 1997.

T-90 is modernized but its still a long shot from the best 3rd gen tanks and thus far its the only replacement with no other "mysterious designs" in sight.

Also Russians dont have an adeqaute air support, their air force might have 200 operational fighters.
February 12th, 2010  
imp
 
Quote:
Kontakt-5 does not defeat DUs
Do you have any proof of this?
Pressume US have tested vs T-80 got from Britain or unsubstantiated by me 3 from Ukraine. Which contact was fitted.
No longer have link as ages ago but do remember when Berlin wall came down Rheinmetall tested vs East German T-72s.
They did indeed find that ERA "pockets" I think they called them stopped KE rounds dead. This was a big surprise as its main role was to stop HEAT though admitadly only covers about 50%. Seem to remember it blasted a plate sideways that sheared the projectile.
I thought new gun design started directly because of these findings so are you saying its advances mean it is now not deafeated by ERA including its current form?
As I say this is from memory.

Agree the bit about new tanks is bull cant even refit keep running what they have
February 12th, 2010  
Bacara
 
 
ok, lets not forget that untill the abrams and the leopard, the western world could not produce a good tank, the russians dominated the field until the abrams, also quantity has a quality all its own, if a T-90 costs 2 million and a abrams cost 6, and they abrams has a k/d ratio of say 2.3, then they still won the war. The germans made this very clear in ww2, the americans and the russians had more tanks, and even though the tiger had a bigger gun and more armor, the russian and americans, mostly the russians, won. Also the costs figures were just me making them up, i dont know the real ones.
February 12th, 2010  
imp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacara
ok, lets not forget that untill the abrams and the leopard, the western world could not produce a good tank, the russians dominated the field until the abrams, also quantity has a quality all its own, if a T-90 costs 2 million and a abrams cost 6, and they abrams has a k/d ratio of say 2.3, then they still won the war. The germans made this very clear in ww2, the americans and the russians had more tanks, and even though the tiger had a bigger gun and more armor, the russian and americans, mostly the russians, won. Also the costs figures were just me making them up, i dont know the real ones.
Where exactly did this come from? If you are talking quantity cant remember figures off hand but roughly Abrams in service = all T-72 80 90 currently in service. Yes there are more in storage what state are they in, how long till actually servicable & how old is the gear fitted on them.
More realisticly the best weapon Russia has is artillery they might be able to strip away TI ect with it leveling the playing field a bit.
In a one shot kill enviroment he who sees first wins so FCS TI are a big factor as proven vs aging T-72s though training of there tank crews was beyond belief.
Can't see it ever happening anyway yes I think its fair to say in the coldwar the advantage swung back & forth though logisticaly how Russia could have ever sustained an attack is beyond me.
Now the gap just grows wider simply looking at Military spending figures US nearly outstrips the rest of the world combined. That said dont knock the Russians they develop some good tech would even say world leaders in some areas at times. But West seems able to catch up faster & Russia never fields in numbers that will make a diffrence anyway.
If & when they develop a new tank they will make what 30 or so a year in all probability & introduce yet another logistics headache