Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Hi


I have got some "new" pictures off the T-95:

i214.photobucket.com...

i214.photobucket.com...

The first one is a very old picture. Propably even from the 90`s off the 20th century. Interesting is that the man that made this picture imagined a howitzer thing when he heard/read that the T-95 was supposed to be turretless.

Second one is a more modern picture but it is also very old.

Here is another nice pic:

i214.photobucket.com...

Its a nice hovercraft tank


Cheers




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by SKUNK2
I think you should learn how to read mate!
Reading comprehension FTW


There is NO WAY you can slap an additional 30 tons on 60 ton design even if the drive train could SOMEHOW , impossibly, be replaced to accomodate such a massive increase. I Wont even mention what that does to the suspension and the tracks if you can go cross country at all!

So as far as i understand the tank still weights in at around 62 tons. Unless you have specific information to the contrary i suggest you pick another topic.

Stellar

Look i can't prove any thing, and i couldn't care less what you think. You should see how you have to add the DLP2 armour to a Chally you have to use a forklift because it isn't possible to lift and fit 1 panel even with 4 men, each panel is nearly 1/2 of a foot thick and must weigh as much as a small car engine.
I also have to say you don't have a clue what your talking about, for a start C2 doesn't have mechanical suspension, it uses hydro-gas, which is much more efficent. A "vanilla" C2 is the fastest tank in the world cross-country FACT. The best protected tank in Nato FACT, and with out a doubt the best protected in the world.

EDIT: I have also found out the US doesn't use metric tonnes so the weights are out. Infact Abrams and such weigh like 56k kg.
Watch this link here, it's the best i can show you about the weight of C2, you must keep in mind this vid is from 2 maybe 3 years ago.
youtube.com...

[edit on 27-1-2008 by SKUNK2]

[edit on 27-1-2008 by SKUNK2]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2
Look i can't prove any thing, and i couldn't care less what you think.


And i do care what you think when you have absolutely no ability to provide even ONE reference source. I don't ask that the source be accurate just for some evidence that your not the only one claiming it!


You should see how you have to add the DLP2 armour to a Chally you have to use a forklift because it isn't possible to lift and fit 1 panel even with 4 men, each panel is nearly 1/2 of a foot thick and must weigh as much as a small car engine.


Unless you want injured personal four men isn't going to lift and fix in place anything more than a few hundred kilo's and a few 200-300 kg panels do not make for a additional THIRTY tons.


I also have to say you don't have a clue what your talking about, for a start C2 doesn't have mechanical suspension, it uses hydro-gas, which is much more efficent.


So suddenly there has been a revolution in suspension design and you can just add half as much weight to the same old suspension design? When did that happen and how did i miss it? Provide me with some evidence that suggests that a gas system subjected to such extra loads would have the capacity to deal with the extra heat and pressure.


A "vanilla" C2 is the fastest tank in the world cross-country FACT.


How is that a fact when there are main battle tanks that weights 45 tons with far better power to weight ratio's that are most certainly going to enable faster cross country speeds. Why you would wish the Challenger to be so good at so many things i just don't know!


The best protected tank in Nato FACT, and with out a doubt the best protected in the world.


Well strangely NATO isn't the world and even in NATO i have little reason to suspect that it's got the best armor. Once again sources would be appreciated.


EDIT: I have also found out the US doesn't use metric tonnes so the weights are out. Infact Abrams and such weigh like 56k kg.


It's in fact just a couple of tons lighter in terms of metric tons and both will be about 7-8 heavier in terms of short-ton measurement.


Watch this link here, it's the best i can show you about the weight of C2, you must keep in mind this vid is from 2 maybe 3 years ago.
youtube.com...


If you want to find your 'truth's by watching video's that's fine by me. If you want to substantiate your claims in the normal ATS way i do suggest you find something in terms of regular sourcing.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Look Stella argue all i want i don't care!!!
You don't listen to a word i say, i have said many times that i can't prove any thing, yet i get an official news cast which i searched hours for that partly supports what i have said.
At the end of the day if you are into military tech or tanks or what ever!!! Why don't you just join the army???
You do know that in the army you get briefed about the capabilities of every thing that you may come across on tour.
Look i've had enough!!!
It doesn't matter what i say you obviously won't listen, like the thread about .50 that PaddyInf posted in, it was a complete joke!!!
Armchair generals trying to tell a soldier what weapon is effective and what isn't, even though the armchair generals have most likely never fired a weapon in their life, let alone being shot at in 50c heat.
O well i've had enough on this thread, post all the crap with 15 year old info all you want.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


If you did that i could thank you for no longer burdening us with 'facts' that you can't even support with ONE sourced claim from the hundreds if not thousands of forums and threads where ignorant chest thumping arm chair generals are busily concocting nonsense from whole cloth. If you believe that a 60 ton tank weighs 90 tons after modification you need medication or some sources showing how the Royal army is using anti gravity technology on their main battle tanks.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 



man, I have to disagree with you with relation to Harlequinn , he tends to be skeptical ,till he sees some proper links or sources....

but i agree with you that there are many posters who try to derail the topic...



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


The second picture shows the multi-faceted radar very well.

Great find!



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 



A "vanilla" C2 is the fastest tank in the world cross-country FACT.


No, the two fastest tanks in the world are gas-turbine powered T-80 and diesel powered Leclerc.


The T-80U has excellent mobility, due to its low ground pressure, and is also one of the world's fastest MBTs.


www.fprado.com...

Challenger 2 - 19.2 hp/tonne, top speed - 59 km/h (37 mph).

T-80U -27.2 hp/tonne, top speed 70 km/h (road), 48 km/h (off-road max, average between 40-42) – 46 tonne weight.

Leclerc - 27.52 hp/tonne, top speed of 71 km/h (road), 50km/h (off-road – average?) – 56 tonne weight.

As far as I know currently the fastest and most maneuverable tank is the T-80 Bars;


The tank accelerates up to a speed of
50 km/h within 17 to 19 s and makes a 3 to 5 m jerk within 1 or 2 seconds, which would cause a projectile fired by the enemy to richochet from the tank.


milparade.udm.ru...

Here’s the interesting part;


Within the near future, the tank will be equipped with a 1,400 hp heavy-duty engine


Will this mean that T-95 will be equipped with the same 1,400 hp engine? And with out all that turret weight, I have to wonder what T-95s hp/tonne and acceleration will be.

If anybody has any solid info on Leclercs acceleration figures I’d like to see them, because I haven’t checked on that lately, so maybe newer Leclerc designs outpace the T-80 a bit in sheer speed.



The best protected tank in Nato FACT, and with out a doubt the best protected in the world.


Yep, facts are a funny thing, like religion, it seems that these days everybody has their own understanding of what it means…

edit:exit bracket

[edit on 28-1-2008 by iskander]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



man, I have to disagree with you with relation to Harlequinn , he tends to be skeptical ,till he sees some proper links or sources....


That very well may be, but even after I repeatedly posted sources he had me going in circles for to long on very basic things, and then simply repeated what I’ve posted as his own words, so anyway, moving on.


but i agree with you that there are many posters who try to derail the topic...


Unfortunately it is true and I see the same old pattern developing.

There’s a fundamental social difference between ant/bee and rat nests.

From there it’s all about self consumption, or locust.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Actually i retract the comment of a C2 being the fastest tank X-country, it's the 2nd fastest with Leclerc being first, because it has a better power to weight ratio.....and hydro-gas suspension.
I can tell you are Americans here now...I have an example here!!! Why can a Mitsubishi Evo FQ400 get around a racing track faster than lets say a modern American Corvette??? Even though the Corvette ways less and produces 100bhp more than the Evo??? Simple??? It has better running gear and chasis. I have even personally spoke to US Marines that use the Abrams, who have driven a C2 X-country. Did you know what they said??? You can hardly feel the bumps and pot holes while you are driving, while an Abrams "shatters your teeth".
You all are clueless! A Challenger2 isn't the most expensive tank in the world for no reason, at x2 the price of an Abrams.
Also on that video i posted, i'm pretty sure they guy said it weighs 75k kg. If you noticed it didn't have Added armour on the front and top of the turret, which is a new feature that is 1 1/2 year old, i also doubt it had been up-armoured on the underside as well which is a new feature.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Actually i retract the comment of a C2 being the fastest tank X-country, it's the 2nd fastest with Leclerc being first, because it has a better power to weight ratio.....and hydro-gas suspension.


No, not really. Just in speed going flat out over cross country T-80 and Leclerc are pretty much at a tie, C2 does not even comes close.

When it comes to the most important factor of cross country mobility, maneuverability means the ability to make drastic change in direction, acceleration and breaking.

This is where T-80 outperforms the heavier Leclerc.

Here’s a good video of a Leclerc doing its basic stuff on paved road, and pay close attention to its breaking performance at time code 55:00.



It really stands up on its toes.

T-80/90 simply outmaneuver all other MBTs, and they regularly and repeatedly do it during every arms trade show.

Western tanks are never exhibited at the same time as the T-80/90, simply because they are not able to match obstacle course lap times that T80/90 have set.

Those record setting obstacle course lap times are still unbeaten.

Abrams is actually the worst all around performer and after a number of embarrassing tracks throws on basic slope course, from that point during displays Abrams simply avoids inclined slopes that other tanks overtake with ease.

It is true that Abrams can literally jump out of its tracks during acceleration, and that’s why it has an acceleration limiter, but it’s not because it’s so fast and powerful, it’s because the tracks simply can’t take all the weight and simply tear.

Tracks of T-80/90 on the other hand are designed to handle extreme punishment, and chew through the type of terrain that other tanks simply throw (lose) their tracks on.

Another extremely important factor is the control of all that power, and unlike typical Western stereotypes, T-80s power plant possesses the finesse of a Rolls Royce. The power is transfered to the tracks with such smoothness, precision and finesse, that a tank driver can drive a nail into a telephone poll with out bending it, denting its head, and with out leaving a single mark on the wood with his 46-50 ton tank.

Here’s a video, time code is 03:52





Why can a Mitsubishi Evo FQ400 get around a racing track faster than lets say a modern American Corvette??? Even though the Corvette ways less and produces 100bhp more than the Evo??? Simple??? It has better running gear and chasis.


Not sure where you’re going with this attempt to make an analogy, but EVO and Corvette are in completely different classes.

EVO is an all wheel drive rally racing inspired design, while a Corvette is real wheel drive classic muscle car, and in all cases, all wheel drive cars put more power to the ground then two wheel drive cars, even if they have less horsepower.

To make a better comparison, Russian tanks are MEDIUM class tanks, while MBT is a made-up classification which was necessary to overcome the well known heavy tank limitations and push forward the production.

If they were boxers, Russian tanks would be in a medium to heavyweight category (40 to 50 tons), while most western tanks are in the super-heavy weight category (50 to 70+ tones), thus lighter Russian tanks are simply quicker on their feet.

For crying out loud, the jump like frogs all while firing their guns in mid air.


I have even personally spoke to US Marines that use the Abrams, who have driven a C2 X-country. Did you know what they said??? You can hardly feel the bumps and pot holes while you are driving, while an Abrams "shatters your teeth".


I don’t know how true that is, I’ve heard Abrams drivers saying that it drive/breaks like a “boat” Cadillac, but yanks like a tractor when turning, so if a C2 handles power transfer between tracks better then it’s entirely possible that it’s ride is smother while actually maneuvering and not just going is a straight line.

Put a soft suspension on a car and see how it corners, especially while breaking. That’s why sports tuned cars have STIFF suspension and that because it allows for quicker reaction time.


You all are clueless! A Challenger2 isn't the most expensive tank in the world for no reason, at x2 the price of an Abrams.


Yea well the price is decided by the total units manufactured, and Abrams is cheaper simply because they are made large numbers, while C2 is made by the handfuls.


Also on that video i posted, i'm pretty sure they guy said it weighs 75k kg. If you noticed it didn't have Added armour on the front and top of the turret, which is a new feature that is 1 1/2 year old, i also doubt it had been up-armoured on the underside as well which is a new feature.


Other then the desert, a tank over 50 tons can not be used in most of the worlds regions.

Immense ground pressure and sheer size do not allow them to maneuver.

While German Tigers and King Tigers are hailed as the premiere tanks of WWII, most of the time they spent in repair, had to be constantly dragged out of the mud, maneuver into position by entire support teams which had to inspect the area, bridge tolerances, etc.

In short it was a logistical nightmare.

Soviet tried playing the heavy tank game, and even though IS-3 was absolutely the best heavy tank of the era, they still did away with all of their heavy tank designs simply because they were to cumbersome to use in the reality of modern warfare.

Heavy tanks simply did not justify all of the require support, it was known back in the 40, and it’s exactly what happened in 1991 Iraq.

M1 Abrams had to have an entire unterauge of soft skinned support vehicles just to keep them running.

Russians learned that lesson well during WWII, when Tiger/KingT support vehicle columns were spotted, they just sent IL-2 Shturmoviks loaded with cluster bombs to knock out all of the soft support vehicles, and then casually proceed to outflank the tank which no longer had their support.

If Saddam had any long range cluster munitions delivery capability, M1s would simply end up being stuck in the sand with dry fuel tanks and with out spare parts.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Here’s another great video of the Leclerc, which IMHO is the best Western thank hands down;

L-_oVNuyTJM

What a beauty!

As far as armor, after the fall of the German wall and reunification of Germany, tests conducted by both Bundeswehr and the US Army officially confirmed that even a “monkey” T-72 fitted with K-5 shattered DM-53 penetrators, and as confirmed by Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness, K-5 proved to be completely immune to DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS fired by 120mm guns.

Exactly the same scenario occurred in Iraq. K-5 enabled Ts were immune to DU rounds, and simply bounced them.

It’s just a fact, look it up.

Now they are in what, 5th or 6th generation?



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
One main bad thing about autoloaders in MBT's, is that the TC or gunner cannot immediately change ammo for the given situation.

Coming upon bad guys inside a well built, multi-layer bunker, they would not fire an AP round, but a HEAT round. However, if they are battle carrying a sabot, they must take the time to exchange it....while the bad guys are ranging them and launching their own projectiles.

In retrospect.....I'm glad THEY are using autoloaders, and not us!

(BTW, it takes less than 10 seconds for a human loader to swap out ammo types in the M1A1. Autoloaders may take up to 30 seconds)

While a low chassis seems like a great idea, TOO low brings about problems of its own. Namely.....stuff gets in the way! There must be a compromise between a low silhouette, and enough height to see/fire over obstructions. If unable to see over or shoot over, say, a wall, then the crew must manuever into the open to engage....which is a bad thing. The entire Soviet/Russian T-series has always had this exact problem; too small a vehicle for the task at hand. Well, that and basic inadequate construction (they just aren't made that good...really!)
well i think the commander choses the ammo and the computer inside the tank does it automatically with no delays
also i have seen clips with autoloaders the ammo and everything that goes with it is instantaneously put in the barrel about 5-8 seconds
automatic loaders are faster than the human isnt the human the weakest link in any machine the russians had a problem with the t-72s automatic loader as the tank was small the auto loader would crush the drivers hand sometimes as it was right next to him but that was taken care of in the later T tanks
also if a tank is lower wouldn't that make it harder to hit and spot
i know i know thermal and all that modern computer stuff



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Here’s a video, time code is 03:52



wow i it goes under water i know the germans have a tank like this
but the russians too
and that autoloader is fast



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
thats the black eagle not the T95...

nice footage still.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Here’s a video, time code is 03:52


That’s the T-80 driving the nail into the telephone pole. Smooth.


thats the black eagle not the T95...


A few tanks were shown, not just the Black Eagle.

Officially T-95 has not yet been unveiled.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I know that there were multiple tanks but there was also black eagle footage and i thought he confused the black eagle with the T95.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I know that there were multiple tanks but there was also black eagle footage and i thought he confused the black eagle with the T95.


And they are going to happen because the Black Eagle tank iff it was aproved, it would get the famed T-95 sticker on its name.

Tommorow or the day after tommorow i will post a pic that many people think it is the right one but that it isnt.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander


As far as armor, after the fall of the German wall and reunification of Germany, tests conducted by both Bundeswehr and the US Army officially confirmed that even a “monkey” T-72 fitted with K-5 shattered DM-53 penetrators, and as confirmed by Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness, K-5 proved to be completely immune to DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS fired by 120mm guns.

Exactly the same scenario occurred in Iraq. K-5 enabled Ts were immune to DU rounds, and simply bounced them.

It’s just a fact, look it up.

Now they are in what, 5th or 6th generation?


For what its worth DM53 is the round it could be from a 105mm gun a 120mm gun or even a 20mm gun , since they all have DM -53 rounds


With reference to the vague german tests, it was later confirmed that the DM 33 round was fired from both the 105mm and 120mm guns and both performed as expected and the 120mm DM 53 was also fired successfully.

If they are the same tests thats been posted around the internet the T-72M-1M was full of holes at the end of the tests.

The American tests were before that and only used the original M-829 APFSDS, not even the A1 of GW fame....but yes since it had no device to defeat the K-5 as the German rounds to have, if failed against the K-5 equipped tank.

The only tests I've seen on K-5 covered tanks was Vasiliy Fofanovs site and that was shot at with russian APFSDS and RPG warheads.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by psteel]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psteel
 



With reference to the vague german tests, it was later confirmed that the DM 33 round was fired from both the 105mm and 120mm guns and both performed as expected and the 120mm DM 53 was also fired successfully.


Oh please, those tests were not “vague”, they were thorough and consistent. One of my doctors served in Germany right up until 1991, and other then the little known fact that Russians fully pulled out of Germany only by 1996 because they were busy securing their sites, numerous special Soviet units (like “Phoenix”) were very busy implementing various contingency plans which were designed just for such occasions like the fall of the wall and disintegration of Warsaw.


If they are the same tests thats been posted around the internet the T-72M-1M was full of holes at the end of the tests.


Not the same tests, but it does show exactly what the point is.


T-72M1M/T-72S – a "modernized" T -72M1 export version, or simply put one of the “monkey” models which was introduced in 1987. New engine, suspension and mounting for ERA.

It was an export version of the domestic T-72B which was introduced in 1985.

While the FCS of the export version was the same it had less ERA.

T-72Ms – Warsaw Pact & export version designations of the basic “domestic” T-72A model.

T-72M1M (aka T-72S) - export “monkey” model year 1987.

Dedicated Soviet T-72A/B(M) versions always had much better build quality/technology then Warsaw/export M versions.

I was talking about Soviet Object 184, 1985 K-5 equipped T-72B (NATO code name SMT M1990). On object 187, (Pattern 1987) K-5 became standard and it was re-designated as T-72BM.

Same thing happens over and over again. T-72s are though of as sheep, like they are all the same, while in reality numerous models differ from each other a great deal so in order to compare them properly one has to first tell apples from oranges.

Not all T-72s are created equal, and while to some they do look like a bunch of sheep ready for the slaughter, “domestic use” Soviet/Russian made T-72s are wolves in sheep's clothing.


The American tests were before that and only used the original M-829 APFSDS, not even the A1 of GW fame....but yes since it had no device to defeat the K-5 as the German rounds to have, if failed against the K-5 equipped tank.


1991 Gulf war showed exactly what the difference is between a “monkey” version, and K-5 equipped T-72s, because K-5s simply bounced every shot and escaped with out a single loss, thus the need for the DU “silver bullet” propaganda, with stories like a M829 hitting a T-72 head on from 2ks, busting the frontal armor, going straight through the entire hull and ripping out the engine out of the back while the turret is blown off by exploding ammo.

Great sounding stories for impressionable teens, but the reality is that the Russians know their armor and know it well, they were the ones that took out the Nazi armor in WWII.

With out massive German armor losses on the Eastern front, and especially Kursk, (the biggest tank battle of all time) the outcome of WWII would have been very different.


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.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"


russianarmor.info...

K-5 was a SECOND generation ERA introduced back in 1985, Kaktus is the 3rd, Relikt is the 4th, while “rumors” are that currently Russians are in the 6th generation development stage, with 5th generation already developed.

What does it all mean? Simple, if actual Soviet tanks had to meet Western tanks in battle, it would have been the exact opposite of Gulf War.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join