saudia will buy 95!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

major liability · Mar 2, 2007

I think they should go with the T-84 Oplot instead, or maybe that variant redesigned for the Turks.

MontyB · Mar 3, 2007

Its hard to say, if (and its a big if) the T-95 is the vehicle it is claimed to be then they will be getting a top grade weapon although I still have great doubt that Russian systems have caught up to the west. If its just another T-72 variant or equivalent then they may as well transfer the left over crewmen to graves detail where they can do some good.

mmarsh · Mar 3, 2007

I dunno, I still think the British Challenger 2, The Abrams, the the Leclerc are top notch tanks. I'd like to see the T-95 handle those with competent crews.

SHERMAN · Mar 3, 2007

Its hard to say, if (and its a big if) the T-95 is the vehicle it is claimed to be then they will be getting a top grade weapon although I still have great doubt that Russian systems have caught up to the west. If its just another T-72 variant or equivalent then they may as well transfer the left over crewmen to graves detail where they can do some good.

Not wanting to open a hardware fight here but two points to be made:
1) The T-72 was a good tank when first made, and in its upgraded versions a very tough opponent to this day.
2)the current russian designs- T-80 and T-90 are very cutting edge vehicles...They thermal imaging, active defence systems, ERA, powerfull engines and a very leathel 125mm gun/missile launcher.
It true their passive armor is considred lacking, and so dose survivebilety, but they are good machines. the fact that they have similarity to the previous tanks in the T family, back to the T-55, is not that bad....
T-55AMV is not a toy you want the bad guys playing with, and its a 50 years old platform....

MontyB · Mar 4, 2007

SHERMAN said:
Not wanting to open a hardware fight here but two points to be made:
1) The T-72 was a good tank when first made, and in its upgraded versions a very tough opponent to this day.

There is little doubt that the T series were good vehicles in their day however I would suggest that the day of the T-72 and its variants are well and truly over.

2)the current russian designs- T-80 and T-90 are very cutting edge vehicles...They thermal imaging, active defence systems, ERA, powerfull engines and a very leathel 125mm gun/missile launcher.
It true their passive armor is considred lacking, and so dose survivebilety, but they are good machines. the fact that they have similarity to the previous tanks in the T family, back to the T-55, is not that bad....
T-55AMV is not a toy you want the bad guys playing with, and its a 50 years old platform....

I agree however I am not sure I understand the benefit to a tank that lacks survivability I also have doubts that Russian FC systems and optics are as good as their likely competitors and if this is the case then they are little more than death traps.

SHERMAN · Mar 4, 2007

lacking in crew survivebilty is not good. it is a major drawback. howver, most tanks and AFVs have major faults, as well as advantages. while the russians have a name for bad survivebilty, they have a name or good things two- simplicty and reliablity. the T series also has a very low sillouet, which as a tank gunner i can tell you gives you a nice little edge.

major liability · Mar 4, 2007

I think the Saudis should jump on the bandwagon and purchase some Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks. I don't know anyone who doesn't like the Leopard 2.

FOXHOUND · Mar 4, 2007

READ AND DESIDE;Unmanned turret, lower profile, a great autoloader, radar, reduced weight, thus very fast while at the same time heavily armored, unmatched crew protection, only 2 man crew, latest generation ERA & active protection systems, stealth, and finaly(152mm) huge o-my-god-this-is-howitzer-calibre cannon that practically rapes every Abrams/Merkava/Leo/LeClerc/Challenger on the field AND can fire new generation guided missiles to take care of those pesky Apache.

bulldogg · Mar 4, 2007

Reading means :cen: all on the battlefield mate, once this puppy goes downrange and gets in the suck is when I will make a decision about its worth. This tank has too many things that could go wrong and make it a worthless rolling bunker with a bullseye. Just like a firearm or any other machine, the more moving parts you have the more chances Murphy has of making your day just oh so :cen:ing grand.

Redleg · Mar 4, 2007

Off-topic posts removed!

Keep on topic from now on gentlemen, and use the report post button instead of replying to flaming/bashing posts!

MontyB · Mar 4, 2007

FOXHOUND said:
READ AND DESIDE;Unmanned turret, lower profile, a great autoloader, radar, reduced weight, thus very fast while at the same time heavily armored, unmatched crew protection, only 2 man crew, latest generation ERA & active protection systems, stealth, and finaly(152mm) huge o-my-god-this-is-howitzer-calibre cannon that practically rapes every Abrams/Merkava/Leo/LeClerc/Challenger on the field AND can fire new generation guided missiles to take care of those pesky Apache.

Like I said the vehicle itself sounds like an innovative design and I hope it does turn out to be all its claimed as that should spur even further innovation from its competitors but making a few prototypes and having them go through staged events to impress potential clients is a far cry from being a combat tested vehicle. In the end time and service will determine how good the vehicle is not specification's on paper and a sales pitch.

SHERMAN · Mar 4, 2007

its true that too much innovation in a tank can be bad...soviets have the T-64 as a proof and the americans had the poor M60A2...

MontyB · Mar 4, 2007

Incidentally I cant seem to find any hard and fast data on this vehicle even its main armament seems up in the air with some sites claiming its a 152mm gun and others claiming 122-135mm, some sites give it a crew of 2 and others 3 if the data for this vehicle is so hit and miss I have to wonder how close it is to actually being produced.

major liability said:
I think the Saudis should jump on the bandwagon and purchase some Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks. I don't know anyone who doesn't like the Leopard 2.

I tend to have the similar issues with the Leopard 2 and Leclerc that I do with the T-95 they simply are not battle tested (at least in any real quantity) on paper all three of them are excellent MBT's but without some action to see how they stand up to their opposition they are unknown quantities, if I was looking to equip a tank force currently I wouldnt consider anything other than the M1A2 or Challenger 2.

SHERMAN · Mar 4, 2007

the leopard and the leclarc are both solid designs. the m1 was not battle proved before the gulf war and neither was the challanger 2 before gulf war 2.....Merkava is also a good design, but i doubt the saudis can or would purchase it

sandy · Mar 6, 2007

Let's return topics to T-95.
Will T-95 be good tank?
Yes,T-95 will be cheap and have a big gun.
That's all but enough.

bulldogg · Mar 6, 2007

Interesting that the T-95 is being made for export and not for internal use. A very telling fact if you ask me.

FOXHOUND · Mar 6, 2007

t-95 tank is not cheap even russia can not have these tanks for herself these tanks are very expensive...

bulldogg · Mar 6, 2007

I believe Sandy was referring to the quality not the cost. Cheap means poor quality while inexpensive means it doesn't cost a lot. Russia still bears the stigma from its Soviet days of mass producing items of very dubious quality.

FOXHOUND · Mar 6, 2007

if tank like this is cheap(low quality) then what is the cost(high quality)tank!!!!!!

bulldogg · Mar 6, 2007

saudia will buy 95!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Active member

All-Blacks Supporter

Active member

Active member

All-Blacks Supporter

Active member

Active member

Banned

Milforum's Bouncer

The fire is everything

All-Blacks Supporter

Active member

All-Blacks Supporter

Active member

Active member

Milforum's Bouncer

Banned

Milforum's Bouncer

Banned

Milforum's Bouncer

We value your privacy