It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 



I'll tell you what i mean!!
There isn't enough crew, for 2 simple reasons! How do you protect the tank if it's broken down or you are a sleep.
Also what if the auto loader fails in the turret??
Russian armour fails against Dorchester armour. Dorchester provides the best protection against every thing besides big EFP's and bombs.
The 135mm gun also fails on the T-95, the only reason for having this calibre is for the ability to fire missiles.
Who ever said Konakt5 stops KE can go back to cloud cookoo land because thats the biggest load of BS i have ever heard. You need solid ceramic composite to stop a KE round.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


SKUNK2. The T-95 Tank wont get penetrated by a DU round because off its armour and its shape.

Lets first assume that teh DU round actualy goes into the armour.

First it needs to penetrate 15 MM off steel. That would be easy but then the projectile finds the explosives going off that make up the ERA armour. The DU round will be bent out off shape because off the force off the blast.

Then it needs to penetrate the Normal armour wich i find an impossibillity to acomplish that after the intial beating on the round.

But all the above doesnt happen because the round is just bouncing right off the glacied armour that is steeply made to bounce off projectiles.


Oh now about the gun: The bigger the diameter the more explosives in one round can be carried thus more destruction upon your enemy forces.

And that is likewise to the ATGM`s who are then fired through the barrel.

Iff the auto loader ever fails then the tank just drives back to home to fix it... That simple... Or it will get repaired at the front by the Russian corps off engineers.

And now the disscusion off the amount off crew:

Are three people inside the tank not enough!!??? Damn man what the hell did you drink??? Do you want 10 guys sitting inside a tank?????????

All your other accusations can also be said about other tanks and other armies so Shut Up.





[edit on 30/9/2007 by James R. Hawkwood]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 

Don't tell me to shut up.
It's obvious you've never been in the military, let alone a bloody tank.
Also don't pretend to know what your on about because you'll get caught out like you have done.
A DU round doesn't need to do any thing but hit it's target, on impact the DU gets turned into plasma and simply pushes through the armour, the only effective countermeasure is ceramic armour, or not to get hit at all. But of course arm chair generals like you know this, don't you *sarcasm*




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2
I'll tell you what i mean!!
There isn't enough crew, for 2 simple reasons!
How do you protect the tank if it's broken down or you are a sleep.


You may be used to driving your tank cross country and entirely alone in your favorite PC game but that ain't real life. I suppose the infantry detachments that should accompany all tank formations can protect the tanks? Why do you want to build a tank that breaks down anyways? Why are you going to sleep in a place where one crewman should stand watch?


lso what if the auto loader fails in the turret??


What if it it fails? Do you want to carry a mechanic around that may or may not be able to fix it? Why not invest the money in highly skilled maintenance vechiles and crew that will not be so directly endangered by enemy fire? Do you know how much more effective you can make a tank if you make the fighting space inside so much smaller?


Russian armour fails against Dorchester armour. Dorchester provides the best protection against every thing besides big EFP's and bombs.


Based on what combat experience or even theoretical speculation? So what if it is better when the Russians are investing so much in active defenses that will engage the incoming round before it ever strikes the tank?

www.fas.org...

www.defense-update.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

russianarmor.info...

www.defense-update.com...

warfare.ru...


The 135mm gun also fails on the T-95, the only reason for having this calibre is for the ability to fire missiles.


Why does it 'fail' when it's but 15 mm's larger calibre than the general western norm?


Who ever said Konakt5 stops KE can go back to cloud cookoo land because thats the biggest load of BS i have ever heard. You need solid ceramic composite to stop a KE round.



According to reports there were 5 K5 equipped tanks at baghad airport which engaged the charging cav units - and to the horror of the american tankers- these very same T-72`s (they had been blowing up for weeks) actually bounced DU shots.

ok they were then killed after taking more hits - but they fired back (and hit)

K5 is underated

and the Leo2 achieves better penertration than the M1 with tungsten ammo not du load

harlequin

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Harleguin provided me with a source that i will go find ( i forgot to add it to doc) if you don't believe that.


The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "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 were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time."

Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well; see T-84 and T-90) . The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods. As a response to M829A3 russian army produced new type of ERA, Relikt, most modern russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.

en.wikipedia.org...



Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

EDIT : Since the poster below is already including this quote...

russianarmor.info...



Originally posted by SKUNK2
Don't tell me to shut up.


I think he was quite justified but a bit 'rude' so would you consider it if i asked really really nicely?


It's obvious you've never been in the military, let alone a bloody tank.


Right and if you were that wont say much for the nation that put inside something so expensive...


Also don't pretend to know what your on about because you'll get caught out like you have done.


Where?


A DU round doesn't need to do any thing but hit it's target, on impact the DU gets turned into plasma and simply pushes through the armour, the only effective countermeasure is ceramic armour, or not to get hit at all.


Physics gone mad! What " PLASMA"! That does not even apply to a shaped charge!


But of course arm chair generals like you know this, don't you *sarcasm


We don't , speaking for myself that is, and that is why i must appeal to physics ( things i can sorta test) and to comparing sources against each other for clarity, accuracy and logic.


Arm chair generals can pretty much say what they like but a ignorant mortal such as myself must stick to their sources.


Stellar

[edit on 1-10-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 



I'll tell you what i mean!!
There isn't enough crew, for 2 simple reasons! How do you protect the tank if it's broken down or you are a sleep.
Also what if the auto loader fails in the turret??
Russian armour fails against Dorchester armour. Dorchester provides the best protection against every thing besides big EFP's and bombs.
The 135mm gun also fails on the T-95, the only reason for having this calibre is for the ability to fire missiles.






Who ever said Konakt5 stops KE can go back to cloud cookoo land because thats the biggest load of BS i have ever heard. You need solid ceramic composite to stop a KE round.


what hawkwood is saying is correct
idiotic , the statement you make is full of # ...


Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA

The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).
russianarmor.info...






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...





photo of k-5 heavy ERA destroyed m829 DU kinetic round:




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Your coming up with **** that is nearly 12 years old. It's a fact ERA fails against KE threats, this is explained to you if you work with armoured vehicles(I work with FV4034's).
Also if you knew any thing you'd know that Dorchester is the best armour in the world, and it'll be even better when it is electrified(Immune to shaped charges).
Having 2 crew members in a tank to a degree fails, it's near on impossible to defend your self, say if you brake down or need to sleep. In a conventional ground war tanks are not always with infantry support, granted they'd be with in 5-10mins away.
The Iraqi tanks that with stood a hit were probably about 1-2miles out. It's common for many modernish tanks to with stand direct hits on the front at this distance. But when you start getting to 1200meters and less the problems start. Any modernMBT can KO the most heavily armoured tank at 800 meters(Chally2).
And stellar what do you mean by "Physics gone mad! What " PLASMA"! That does not even apply to a shaped charge! ".
It's known fact that the tip of a DU round and even tunksten turn into plasma due to force, speed and heat of the impact agaist the armour, this is why KE rounds work so well, ever heard of the saying "like a hot knife through butter", I'm not saying plasma is hot either, and i havn't even mentioned any thing about shaped charges



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I allways tought that DU does ignite, WHILE penetrating, not immediately at impact... Its penetration is based solely on it's kinetic energy. The "plasma" effect only comes to play at destroying the crew and inner workings of the target. Same to a degree applies to Tungsten too. But neither of the materials bases it's penetration on heat. Remember that even HEAT rounds penetrate with kinetic energy.

Ps. Yes i've been inside of tank, even served with "armoured" vehicles, but i didn't learn any of this there, but on material sciense classes.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
SKUNK2 I am sorry about that shut up thingy. I hope you can forgive it me.

But some off your statements are a bit wrong wich i tried to correct in a very rude way. Again sorry about the shut up thingy.

I have a question for you SKUNK2.

Why did the DU penetrators failed and bounced off when a group off M1A1`s encounterd T-72`s at the Baghdad airport laden with ERA boxes???

That is because the ERA was Kontakt5 and those tanks physical features allowed them to have slanted Armour.

Such a thing will happen again when the T-95 comes into play.


Oh i find an autoloader better then a human loader because without a loader the entire crew sits inside the tank itself and not in the turret wich is the prime target to shoot at.

And iff the turret is destroyed the crew survives and get a change to retreat and have their turret replaced and with some food gotten into them they are ready for combat only a bit shaken up instead off mourning the death off their fellow comerade who was else sitting up their loading the gun...

That is why i find the Russian way off making tanks the best way for an army.

I hope we both learned some things and good luck at your job!!!

Cheers



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I found some new images on the Internet about the T-95.

Here are them:





First one shows the tank on the outside on a desert battlefield and the second one is a cutted sideview.

But can anyone say what the caliber off the main gun will be? Because i am confused between 135 MM and 152 MM.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
looks like there is noone in the turret.

Looks like this will be the first next gen tank. I guess if so it will dominate untill the next gen tanks of the other tanks come out.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
looks like there is noone in the turret.

Looks like this will be the first next gen tank. I guess if so it will dominate untill the next gen tanks of the other tanks come out.


Yep, that is entirely correct.

Here is pic i found on the Internet:

It shows you a "normal" turret, but infact a heck off a lot off the mass you see is just pure armour:

i214.photobucket.com...

Cheers



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Here’s how I see it.

Stealth the crap out of it (shape it to look cool), slap a few thick layers of RAM/ERA on it (paint it black), give it a cool name like “DragonClaw” or something, put a bunch of half-naked chicks on top, make a rap video, and then sell it at 20 mil each!

Other then that, I take it they’ll make a standard unit, a command unit, air defense unit (main gun /less armor + Tunguska ) and heavily armored BMPT unit (main gun + multiple dual warhead ATGM launchers, automatic grenade launchers, 30mm auto cannons, etc.)

And we’ll have a puny 105mm gun slapped on 8 wheeled ATV, which is over TEN FEET TALL.

Personally I see Russians using the Mobile Gun System as a gauge to judge just how drunk they actually are.

If you can’t see it coming – the buzz is on, but not there yet.

If see it and can’t hit it with a gun tube launched ATGM – doing better but still need more vodka.

When can’t hit it with a 155mm cannon, relax, take a breather and have another shot.

When that itsy 105mm finally fizzles back and tickles you awake, then you’re just right!

Seriously, how drunk does one have to be to not see THIS coming?







When I was a kid I had toys that looked more convincing then that. (Back then toys were made out of metal, and not in China)



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Iskander... What on earth are you talking about?

I read your post 7 times and still dont get it...

Please make your post clear and easy to read.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


drugs are bad mkay



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Iskander... What on earth are you talking about?


Abrams is to be retired with out a next generation MBT planned.

Instead, T-95 is supposed to be countered by mobile ATGMs and Stryker mounted 105mm guns.

That means that Russians can start selling these T-95s selling like hot cakes, but this time charge substantially more then what they are getting now for contemporary designs.

As it stands, T-95 is the only next generation tank in the world, and while some still argue for $80mil a pop Osprey, our armored forces will be completely naked since officially Abrams fleet will live until 2020 and “beyond”.

“Beyond” means what ever scraps are still left, kind of like what’s happening with our F-15 Eagle fleet.

But hey, let’s get more Ospreys! A whole bunch of them, joined in the digital network of FCS, and then we can duct tape that 105mm gun to it since A-10 fleet is aging just as rapidly, and F-35 is NOT going to be able to replace the A-10 in any shape or form.

T-95, that’s the year. Russians sat on this thing through out the 90s, lack of funds, what ever, the fact is that they never stopped testing and refining.

Now it’s 2008, T-95 has already been marketed, while we with the largest economy/R&D in the world we got TUSK and 105mm gun on wheels.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Well the US just has to hope they will never face a advisairy with T95's then


Well that depends on the price ofcourse. Any price estimates floating around yet?

[edit on 14-1-2008 by tomcat ha]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



drugs are bad mkay


Come on, who’s got the best drugs? Your doctor! Street pushers got nothing on pharmaceuticals.

These days you can have your family doc whip up a combo that Stumpfegger never dreamed of.

“Jacobs ladder” has nothing on what can be obtained in your local friendly pharmacy.

I’ve seen some consumer data, good grief, if only people knew how many functioning, working, family oriented Americans live their daily lives on the type of meds that would make a junky twitch.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


We got a lot more than that, its just going to take some time. The first thing that might be effective against the T-95 is the MRM-KE and MRM-CE, two gun fired ATGMs that outrange the T-95 as far as I know. But please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think a link is necessary, you posted a thread about it today.

The second thing that might be effective is the CKEM shoulder fired ATGM. Believe it or not, its about as effective as giving the infantryman the gun on the Abrams. I posted a thread about it a while back but no one replied.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And finally, there IS a next generation tank prototype in the US now, and here is a link to a thread I started, with what used to be a working video the next post down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thing should be able to take the '95 toe to toe at least.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackWidow23
 


I watched the video.

FCS is not a MBT. Just look at the chassis. Even with the stated goal of 40 tons, its cassis and hull type more resembles an APC class vehicle.

Look at the tread width and the size of the roller wheels.


That thing should be able to take the '95 toe to toe at least.


It has a huge turret which must be responsible for the bulk of the weight just as it is the case with the Abrams, and since it was stated that all of the crew will be seated in the forward compartment just as with T-95, then by default FCS must have an autoloader, but for which gun? How fast is it going to be? Too many questions are left out while T-95 is already operational.

Plastic tank? I’m just not sure about that. Airborne drops are noting new.

Soviets have been dropping their armor for ever, and while at first crews were parachuted separately from the vehicles, later on BMPs were dropped with a full crew on board, and upon touchdown it just rolled right into the battle.

What is the current status of the FCS?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


I see what you are saying. Its not possible to really compare them without knowing the specs of both vehicles.

I must disagree with your classification as an APC type vehicle, from what I can see it is very much a tank. It is probably better protected than the Abrams even with less armor because it has a ridiculous armor slope on the front. Not to mention the gun, probably 140mm. Without a coaxial gun its classified as a tank killer, but I believe that it will have one. The simulation videos directly from the US army show that its intended as a tank as well, and I'm sure that we can expect things like active protection systems and such. The only reason I note this prototype is because its not just on paper anymore.

The current status of the FCS? Very much delayed. I don't think we will be seeing anything like that come online until after 2020.

EDIT: Oh, and the plastic tank is a joke to me. Its too radical for anyone to fund and from what I can see not very effective.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by BlackWidow23]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join