What about the t-95?

gotcha1234

Active member
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 :pray: Is a official secret :angel:
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...)
cccd19fe80ca.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 smart:cens:ed 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.
 
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 smart:cens:ed 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. :-D No hard feelings where intended just counter your guesses, we like to debate around these parts:wink:. 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
yes i do think you are right, i do know that tanks is not an urban fighter thats why u have tank like the "BRADLEY from the USA, ROOIKAT from the RSA." Tanks are more for the open fields like desserts and grass plains. That gun will be great in open field warfare and yes not in urban.
 
:visor:Yes with that gun it will kill the rest"ww2 the tiger and king tigers 88guns was the best" crappy tank though. abr, leo2 merka. good tanks in this case the 1 with da bigger stick wins the fight. Flop i don't think so the Russians build damn good tanks sold the most too the world than any other country.
 
yes i do think you are right, i do know that tanks is not an urban fighter thats why u have tank like the "BRADLEY from the USA, ROOIKAT from the RSA." Tanks are more for the open fields like desserts and grass plains. That gun will be great in open field warfare and yes not in urban.


Well the Bradley isn't really classified as a tank, it's an IFV and the Rooikat is officially classified as an Armored car/AFV.

IMO if we should have kept with the M551 or M8, which are the perfect size with MOUT. Mod an M551 with a 105mm and a few other additions and you'd be golden.
 
Last edited:
Well the Bradley isn't really classified as a tank, it's an IFV and the Rooikat is officially classified as an Armored car/AFV.

IMO if we should have kept with the M551 or M8, which are the perfect size with MOUT. Mod an M551 with a 105mm and a few other additions and you'd be golden.

Except for the fact that an RPG can punch straight though its extremely light armor and do very bad things to the inside. And these days every bad guy and his brother knows how to make EFPs and they can slice through aluminum like a hot knife through butter. However, I think that if you take an M551 chassis and rebuild it with modern armor and survivability features it could work. But with the Stryker Mobile Gun System and its 105mm gun already in service I doubt they would consider it.
 
Except for the fact that an RPG can punch straight though its extremely light armor and do very bad things to the inside. And these days every bad guy and his brother knows how to make EFPs and they can slice through aluminum like a hot knife through butter. However, I think that if you take an M551 chassis and rebuild it with modern armor and survivability features it could work. But with the Stryker Mobile Gun System and its 105mm gun already in service I doubt they would consider it.

The armor for the M551 was made to withstand 30mm hits and bolt-on armor is not hard to produce or even a redesign on the turret, as shown with the M60 Sabra the Isreali's have. Your also forgetting the Bradley has armor similar to the M551 and in-order to defeat EFP's, seconday and even a third armor package was require. the Stryker is made to withstand 14.5mm it is extremely, thinly armored and even with Slat armor to protect against RPG's it's still like rolling a tin-foil covered car into town, the MGS is a good system but it is far from a tank, something light with treads is needed.

Personally I don't think slapping a 105mm on a IFV is definatly not a way to out match something such as a modified and updated M551A1 (TTS). It's like the issue with the HMMVEE, using a vehicle made for rear-enchlon cargo and troop transport for front line urban combat. Fourtunatly the HUMVEE has held up like a champ, and cetainly owe's no one anything.
 
Last edited:
The armor for the M551 was made to withstand 30mm hits and bolt-on armor is not hard to produce or even a redesign on the turret, as shown with the M60 Sabra the Isreali's have. Your also forgetting the Bradley has armor similar to the M551 and in-order to defeat EFP's, seconday and even a third armor package was require. the Stryker is made to withstand 14.5mm it is extremely, thinly armored and even with Slat armor to protect against RPG's it's still like rolling a tin-foil covered car into town, the MGS is a good system but it is far from a tank, something light with treads is needed.

Personally I don't think slapping a 105mm on a IFV is definatly not a way to out match something such as a modified and updated M551A1 (TTS). It's like the issue with the HMMVEE, using a vehicle made for rear-enchlon cargo and troop transport for front line urban combat. Fourtunatly the HUMVEE has held up like a champ, and cetainly owe's no one anything.

It would require a costly and relatively significant series of upgrades to make the M551 a suitable combatant on todays urban battlefield. Off the top of my head it would require a modified turret, modern electronics and targeting systems, new armor packages, and modified ammo storage so the crew doesn't get burned alive after a hit. It could be done and would probably even be highly effective once they finally got on the ground. The real question is - would it be cost effective to upgrade the limited number M551s we still have in our inventory? We have thousands of Bradley IFVs and CFVs still in service and that alone makes it cost effective for the Army to keep upgrading them. Don't get me wrong, personally I'm a big fan of the Sheridan and light tanks as a whole. But I think that Army brass would be more inclined to spend money on a new modern design instead of the ugly stepchild mainsteam generals never really liked.

I agree with you about the Stryker. Like the Humvee it's being forced into situations it wasn't designed to handle. I think it's just a matter of time before the bouncing baby Stryker gets an armor overhaul.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
It would require a costly and relatively significant series of upgrades to make the M551 a suitable combatant on todays urban battlefield. Off the top of my head it would require a modified turret, modern electronics and targeting systems, new armor packages, and modified ammo storage so the crew doesn't get burned alive after a hit. It could be done and would probably even be highly effective once they finally got on the ground. The real question is - would it be cost effective to upgrade the limited number M551s we still have in our inventory? We have thousands of Bradley IFVs and CFVs still in service and that alone makes it cost effective for the Army to keep upgrading them. Don't get me wrong, personally I'm a big fan of the Sheridan and light tanks as a whole. But I think that Army brass would be more inclined to spend money on a new modern design instead of the ugly stepchild mainsteam generals never really liked.

I agree with you about the Stryker. Like the Humvee it's being forced into situations it wasn't designed to handle. I think it's just a matter of time before the bouncing baby Stryker gets an armor overhaul.


I keep thinking our military thinks outside the box, in an inventive way, but what you say is very true, top brass would laugh you out of the building if you brought something like that up.

I keep forgetting we may be a very lucrative and rich country, but we tighter fisted than a miser.

In the long run though re-activating and upgrading Sheridan's night be a bit less cost worthy than actually putting together team to draw out and plan a dedicated, brand new, vehicle that would probably end up being a clusterf**k.

The Sheridan's armor is pretty woeful and the addition of a 105mm might even throw the tank off balance.

Maybe, I don't know. That 152mm has some umph.

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.

I think another good candidate is the M8 Buford. Excellent vehicle.
 
Last edited:
I think another good candidate is the M8 Buford. Excellent vehicle.

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.
 
Back
Top