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?

What do you expect from the t-95?

Have hopes and waiting Is a official secret
Better take count of Omsk's tank "Black Eagle" (Dynamic protection "Cactus", eight-layer composite armor, active protection "Shtora", "Drozd", gas-turbine engine 1500hp. (new technology of air cleaning isn't from Abrams), at all...)

vaporware...

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?

I wouldn't hold my breathe on this thing. Chances are it's more of a looks kind of tank vs actually being able to withstand any "westernized" armor. From what I've seen pretty much anything Russia has produced isn't really comparable in a toe-to-toe comparison with anything currently fielded.

It's not really a matter of preference, more of a matter learned design for protection. Sloped armor, tends to provide a better defense.

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?

I think it will probably have the following feature. (My best guesses.)
1 - Have a low set hull to reduce its targeting silhouette.
2 - Have a diesel engine for lower maintenance and reduced operating cost.
3 - Incorporate full platform stabilization with the latest rangefinders and night fighting sights for its main gun. (Can anyone tell me why Russians seem to like autoloaders in their tanks?)
4 - It's armor will probably be some kind of multilayer composite with reactive armor tiles and the jamming and active protection systems that have been developed.
5 - Be cheaper than contemporary western tanks.

Beyond this I don't even want to guess.

Originally Posted by Sinnr

I think it will probably have the following feature. (My best guesses.)
1 - Have a low set hull to reduce its targeting silhouette.
2 - Have a diesel engine for lower maintenance and reduced operating cost.
3 - Incorporate full platform stabilization with the latest rangefinders and night fighting sights for its main gun. (Can anyone tell me why Russians seem to like autoloaders in their tanks?)
4 - It's armor will probably be some kind of multilayer composite with reactive armor tiles and the jamming and active protection systems that have been developed.
5 - Be cheaper than contemporary western tanks.

Beyond this I don't even want to guess.

1 - Most Russian armor has a low silhouette, but in today's combat where you have TIS, UAV's, ect... that means little.
2 - Most Russian armor has diesels, the T-80 being the exception.
3 - Define latest? The Russians are just delving into Thermal Imaging, the US has had TIS since the M60A2/A3 and our NID's go even further back. (Frees up a man to use elsewhere, they make armor on the cheap and it's cheaper to have an autoloader than cloth, feed, house, and arm a human.)
4 - Now that right there is being over optimistic. Russia in tougher economic times than we are, and their R&D is almost 30 years behind every other "Westernized" nation.
5 - Russian armor always has been. Make cheap stuff, you can sell it cheap.

No matter how much you pray that the T-95 be something great, it is still Russian. And they have a notorious track record for producing anything on a grand scale. Chances are it will may have half of what your asking for.

The T-95 is more of a concept tank more than anything. You can take a prototype and throw all kinds of neat gadets on it, but when it's real time to make the metal meet the meat can they actually produce enough of them to matter? I'll use an example...Britian(not picking on you guys, just an example) has 386 Challenger II's, in the spectrum of armor warfare that equals nothing. The US has around 7,000 M1A1's , The USMC has 400 alone. It's not a KO match of who's is better but who's got more.

Debates about what countries armor is better but when in todays technological world all MBT's are on par, the question is when you've got only got 500 T-95's and your enemies got 3,000 Leo's/Chally's/M1's.

So in the all-in-all, it's a toss. We can bicker all we like, but none of us really know what the outcome would be.

Originally Posted by FO Seaman

1 - Most Russian armor has a low silhouette, but in today's combat where you have TIS, UAV's, ect... that means little.
2 - Most Russian armor has diesels, the T-80 being the exception.
3 - Define latest? The Russians are just delving into Thermal Imaging, the US has had TIS since the M60A2/A3 and our NID's go even further back. (Frees up a man to use elsewhere, they make armor on the cheap and it's cheaper to have an autoloader than cloth, feed, house, and arm a human.)
4 - Now that right there is being over optimistic. Russia in tougher economic times than we are, and their R&D is almost 30 years behind every other "Westernized" nation.
5 - Russian armor always has been. Make cheap stuff, you can sell it cheap.

No matter how much you pray that the T-95 be something great, it is still Russian. And they have a notorious track record for producing anything on a grand scale. Chances are it will may have half of what your asking for.

The T-95 is more of a concept tank more than anything. You can take a prototype and throw all kinds of neat gadets on it, but when it's real time to make the metal meet the meat can they actually produce enough of them to matter? I'll use an example...Britian(not picking on you guys, just an example) has 386 Challenger II's, in the spectrum of armor warfare that equals nothing. The US has around 7,000 M1A1's , The USMC has 400 alone. It's not a KO match of who's is better but who's got more.

Debates about what countries armor is better but when in todays technological world all MBT's are on par, the question is when you've got only got 500 T-95's and your enemies got 3,000 Leo's/Chally's/M1's.

So in the all-in-all, it's a toss. We can bicker all we like, but none of us really know what the outcome would be.

You'll notice that I didn't put anything down that wasn't a decent guess to anyone with basic knowledge about Russian tanks. The way I had it written initially was really smarted but I didn't want to insult anyone and possible get banned.

You make a good point though. It doesn't matter how good the T-95 is because the Russian military can't afford to field a large fleet of them anyway.

Originally Posted by Sinnr

You'll notice that I didn't put anything down that wasn't a decent guess to anyone with basic knowledge about Russian tanks. The way I had it written initially was really smarted but I didn't want to insult anyone and possible get banned.

You make a good point though. It doesn't matter how good the T-95 is because the Russian military can't afford to field a large fleet of them anyway.

Sorry didn't can't that. No hard feelings where intended just counter your guesses, we like to debate around these parts. It's usually pretty lax around here, unless you attack someone outright or break a rule your chances of banishment are slim, btw Welcome to the forum.

Another question. If the rumors are correct about he size of the T-95s main gun. Do you think it's even practical to have a 152mm gun on a reasonably sized tank. Assuming it's not a short barreled infantry support weapon I would think such a large gun would be of limited use in the tight quarters urban environments we fight in today. And the size of the shells themselves severely limit the number that could be carried into battle.

Originally Posted by Sinnr

Another question. If the rumors are correct about he size of the T-95s main gun. Do you think it's even practical to have a 152mm gun on a reasonably sized tank. Assuming it's not a short barreled infantry support weapon I would think such a large gun would be of limited use in the tight quarters urban environments we fight in today. And the size of the shells themselves severely limit the number that could be carried into battle.

Well assuming it isn't something like the M81E1 the M551 had, as you said.

If the T-95 does end up with a full length 152mm, they may be forced to utilize a manual loader. Only because a full size cased 152mm would be massively long, they may have to use case-less rounds with powder charges like the Challenger does. Even to have good velocity on a round that size, the gun would have to be ridiculously long, unless of course it's firing something like the X-ROD or MRM, which is something I wouldn't doubt the Russians fielding.

Another factor to consider is that Russian forces my not even use the T-95 in low intensity, urban conflicts. They have ample amounts of smaller, more urban capable tanks at their disposal. They may keep the T-95 in a type of reserve only used when facing an enemy with actual armor capabilities.

Look at us, we're using M1's, Challenger's and the Leo 2 and it is a tough cookie to contend with, I can't even imagine the Russian's being inept enough to try and lumber that beast into an urban environment...but then again. I only assume the T-95 would be larger that "Western" type MBT's due to the amount of junk they propose will be on it and the size of the gun they want on it, you can put something that big on a T-55, it's rip it to shreds. Something like when we had the TOW in Jeeps, ripping the floor right out.

IMO this is something like the Russians trying for a modern day Maus or T-29 tank.