What about the t-95? - Page 8




 
--
 
March 7th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie.
Wow, nice posts Nero.

I always thought that the Russians never really recovered from their 1990's state, but it seems that its been steadily improving!
They're not, their spending per soldier fell by 80$ this year (thats 6% of their annual per troop spending) and their only new purchase in 09 were 42 T-90 tanks.

In fact despite increase in military spending their military is steadily falling apart, mainly because the costs of upkeep of old equipment outpace increase in military spending by several hundred percent.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...in-forest.html

The state of the Russian army, 200 tanks abandoned in the forest.


Also sorry Nero i'm still not seeing any proof of T-95 existence, unless you're proposing a modified T-80 turret as your supertank, you're almost like the M113 "Gavin" guy
March 7th, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
Well, what terrain does the t-95 is supposed to operate in? That could answer some questions. Snow, mountain, other?
March 9th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Hi Panzercracker,
Actually, is not a question. Parts 1&2 were done specifically as a response to your position that Russia cannot afford to support development of new equipment in adequate numbers to become again, a formidable force on the internationaol stage.
The war games sited were done for a specific purpose; these are real preparation exercises for an expected event.
Thanks Aussia, actually the enabling technology of the T-95, the Advanced Hydrualic Engine, driveline and suspension, are all based on work originally done in Australia better than 20 years ago, but nobody other than the Russian military was ever interested. And so, the only people who ever properly evlauated it was the Russian military. Aussie, if you think this is interesting, you might like to go back through the history of these posts and see what is on John Keller's blog, the URLs were included in earlier posts, but if you can't find them, I can provide them again. The Australian DoD was aware of this stuff and if you ask I'll put together a post on this as well.
NERO1234
--
March 9th, 2010  
Aussie.
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Hi Panzercracker,
Actually, is not a question. Parts 1&2 were done specifically as a response to your position that Russia cannot afford to support development of new equipment in adequate numbers to become again, a formidable force on the internationaol stage.
The war games sited were done for a specific purpose; these are real preparation exercises for an expected event.
Thanks Aussia, actually the enabling technology of the T-95, the Advanced Hydrualic Engine, driveline and suspension, are all based on work originally done in Australia better than 20 years ago, but nobody other than the Russian military was ever interested. And so, the only people who ever properly evlauated it was the Russian military. Aussie, if you think this is interesting, you might like to go back through the history of these posts and see what is on John Keller's blog, the URLs were included in earlier posts, but if you can't find them, I can provide them again. The Australian DoD was aware of this stuff and if you ask I'll put together a post on this as well.
NERO1234
Trust me mate, I started reading from you first post when people thought you were being sarcastic [Which means I read the two Keller urls as well].
March 9th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Hi Panzercracker,
Actually, is not a question. Parts 1&2 were done specifically as a response to your position that Russia cannot afford to support development of new equipment in adequate numbers to become again, a formidable force on the internationaol stage.
Nothing in your quote, not a single word indicates Russia can afford anything or has a formidable force, in fact all you posted is a relatively large excersize which is nothing short of a strawman argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Thanks Aussia, actually the enabling technology of the T-95, the Advanced Hydrualic Engine, driveline and suspension,
Proof that they exist outside of your imagination please?
March 12th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Ok, lets just sit back and wait and see.
I don't have so much to lose as some.
NERO1234
March 12th, 2010  
captiva303
 
 
looks like we will have to wait and see.
until it goes into production and is thoroughly tested im not going to draw any solid conclusions on the thing...
March 13th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Ok, lets just sit back and wait and see.
I don't have so much to lose as some.
NERO1234
I take it you conceed that you were lying and everything you posted about the T-95 was made up and that you dont have any sources to back up your claims.

Thank you.
March 15th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Oh, Panzercracker, it's rather impolite to call someone a liar because he simply proposes to let time prove the arguement.
So let's look at the options here for a minute.
The powering concept evaluated by the Russian Engine Research Institute, on behalf of Rosvoorouzhneie State Unitary Corporation, was one of a series of systems to be proposed for incorporation within the development program for the Next Generation MBT of the Russian Army, at that time. The Russians never bothered to pay me for the powering concept, so they were never offered the other systems, all of which were then, and still are, applicable to the more general program for the development of the Next Generation Equipment of the Russian Army.
About a month back, after an incident in India, I checked with the Australian Federal Police that I could still work with the Russian military, if I so wished. It was confirmed I could still do so and that this matter was raised with the AFP is a matter of record.
Like the earlier powering technology, these further technologies have been proposed for development in America, you are free to check with Lt. Col Smith, Lawrence A. Defence Attache' American Embassy, Colombo.
These additional systems were specifically concepts developed to take the MBT and other combat systems into the realm of Advanced Combat Robotics. A matter originally discussed with MCTL something like twenty years ago, MCTL failed to take these systems up because they broke off the dialogue when they learned I was not an American national and was actually outside their system.
To prove the point, would you rather these additional systems were now offered to the Russian military, to take their combat systems truly into a 21st Century format?
Your call, Panzercracker.
Original systems (evaluated & adopted) - Advanced Hydraulic Engine, Hydraulic Driveline & Integrated Hydraulic Suspension;
Original systems not proposed - Advanced Data Processing Capability; Discreeet Communications Technique; Advanced Inbound Munitions Countermeasures.
Additional systems (not yet offered) - Safety Cartridge; Advanced Ballistic Armour;
March 16th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
No Nero, if i discuss with you and at some point you want me to validate my claims go for it, every time someone asked i produced sources.

My problem with your posts is that being aware of the Russian tank development i know you're making things up so i ask you to prove it and every single time instead of producing sources with which to back up your claims you make another huge absolutely meaningless post.

So yes you're a liar.

Russians are currently working on a new larger turret and even this is not developed beyond a mock up, neither T-95 nor Black Eagle exist as working tanks or even prototypes anywhere except your head.

Proof that T-95 or Black Eagle exist please?

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html

This is how far the T-95 and Black Eagle ever came, wooden mock-ups, want me to translate it for you?