@MrGoroshi У меня такое ощущение как будто Россия начинает набирать обороты, к примеру сейчас выпустили новый истрибитель, повысили зарплату военным, всё это намекает на то что возможна война, и нужны люди которые будут воевать.
@OnlySkupe Напряжение в Мире действительно растёт. Новый истребитель еще не о чём не говорит. Но вот массовая модернизация старой техники и перевод ВСЕЙ Армии на части постоянной готовности, может являться знаком некой нервозности среди военно-политического руководства. Так же как и значительные усилия по восстановлению военно-промышленного комплекса.
Ээх... Какой чёткий танк, но пока у нас министром обороны будет Сердюков, то на вооружение нашей армии у них не выпросишь денег даже на Т-90МС. Всё бабло в карман гребут, на страну плюют, а потом за бугор свалят.
All BS aside, this design appears to be superior to the T-90. The ammo looks like it was moved from the hull to a bussel at the rear of the turret, which if the ammo was stored in a M-1 style strong box, would have gone a long way to solving Russian tanks survivability problems.
I can only assume the tank was not put into production because of weight (Russian rolling stock can only transport 40T class tanks), and the T-95's unit cost.
@Waltham1892 The most important feature of T-95 over any other existing tank today is its unmanned turret. Russian railway network can support up to 50t. If it was limited to 40, then all tanks since T64 would be overweight.
There is a Greek saying "Pan Metron Ariston" meaning "Everything is fine with measure. You can't go with overcomplicated and overpriced state-of-art design when your industry can build only 10 of them per year. That would be a failure.
From the picture of the T-95, here and elsewhere, you can see that the turret is manned. Its far to large for just sensors and an autoloader; views of the turret top show a gunner and commander's hatch in the typical Soviet/Russian configuration.
And yes, Russian rolling stock can handle tanks up to 50t, which limits Russian tanks to 50t and under. In my previous posting I phrased the poorly.
That's why Russia choose intermediate solution of Armata, which will have T-90 chassis probably, but modular design for FOV creation, some technologies borrowed from T-95. What is the most important is if Armata will also feature unmanned turret or if it will have classic combat compartment as we know it today.
So, if in 2015 Russian MIC will be able to build 100 Armata per year, it is sure better solution than 10 T-95.
Going with an unmanned turret is not as easy as it sounds. Crew workload goes way up, the ability to operate in close environments (like urban) where turret top MG's need to be manned becomes a problem, as does crew/platoon/company level maintenance.
Given Russian loses in Grozny; I don't think they are seriously entertaining the idea any longer. I know the US has given up on the idea.
In any case, the T-95 is not going to see production.
@Waltham1892 "Again, the turret of the T-95 is manned"
Any source to back up your statement? Till now all sources, including UVZ factory speak about unmanned turret and that's why they made it so tall. Its height doesn't compromise crew survivability anymore.
"in close environments (like urban) where turret top MG's need to be manned"
Who said that top MG must be manned and not remotely operated. Russians have AA MGs remotely operated and fully stabilized since T-64.
Yes, an image search on Google will show that, among the various tanks called the T-95, the most recent all have crew hatches in the expected locations on the turret.
There was a turretless design study with an unmanned turret, just as there is one for the M-1, but both seem to have gone no where.
Grozny says that guns need to be manned. The limited field of view offered by remote sensors or vision blocks gets crews killed.
You are aware that the T-95 was cancled in May of 2011?
@Waltham1892 "image search on Google" - HAHA! Nice "source". Google image search show only imaginations of some "authors" how T-95 would look like and many times Black Eagle is mistakenly presented as T-95.
There are very few real pictures of real T-95 prototype and most of them are here. And here (btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html). Can you see any "crew hatches" there? There is one for ammo loading.
3man crew sits in isolated armored capsule inside the hull. That was the concept.
Given that we can not identify which tank is the T-95, and given that official sources say that the T-95 has been canceled, what is there left to say about the T-95?
@Waltham1892 "Given that we can not identify which tank is the T-95"
Anyone who looks at Google Images sure can't identify real T-95. :)
T-95 is a tank presented in this video and at URL mentioned above.
"what is there left to say about the T-95"
Pure technologically? About solutions and concepts implemented in it. Like NLOS cannon for US FCS project for example. Despite it is canceled as project, T-95 remains a single existing 4th generation MBT prototype.
@Waltham1892 "Grozny says that guns need to be manned."
For what? In order to get killed faster? T-72/80 TC operates machine gun remotely from inside and much more effectively, because that MG is connected to tank's FCS and commander has full stabilization of MG and sights and night-vision (or thermal sights later).
In Grozny any exterior equipment on tank became useless after several RPGs. Just like Challengers 2 blinded in Basra in 2003. They didn't fire a single shot with AA MG.
I love talking tanks with people who read about tanks, but have never crewed one...
What keeps a crew alive in close combat is being aware of what is around them. Being buttoned up limits your field of view to a few degrees and no gun traverses faster than I can turn my head.
Once you give button up your enemy can be standing on top of you and you'd never seen them.
@Waltham1892 Observation and situational awareness is a job for TC and TC has all needed instruments for that without putting his head out of tank. He doesn't need to traverse tank's turret. He has 6-8 prismatic sights in his Commander's turret. He has independent commander's sight (with night vision or thermals) and zoom. All these gives him much more possibilities than looking outside by naked eyes.
Yes, you are write, I am not a tank crew member. However, I've read testimonies..
As a Tank Commander, Platoon Leader, XO, Asst S-3, and S-3, I'm telling you that observation is the duty of every crew member, with each crew member scanning an assigned sector.
The T/C, because his attention is divided between his sight, the radio, the battlefield, his map, and supervising the crew, is perhaps the least effective at visual scanning.
@Waltham1892 ... and witnesses of real tankers, including ones operating in Chechnya in first and second campaign. I never see opinion that AA MG must be operated by commander placing his body in danger outside of tank's armor. As I said before, US and Germany moves in this direction (placing remotely operated AA MGs on top), despite you stated otherwise. Search for new M1A2 SEP versions... guess what they have? :) Every tank building country is wrong I suppose.
If I wanted an advice on how to operate tanks in an urban environment, I would not ask the tankers in Chechnya. 140 of 200 tanks lost in Grozny. That is a whole Division's worth of tanks and crews.
An amateur thinks that a tank is like a armored womb and once you are buttoned up no one can hurt you.
WRONG.
You are safer with your head up, looking for your enemy, then you are trying to peak at him through vision blocks.
@Waltham1892 Your numbers are wrong. Can you provide source for "140 of 200"?
225 armored vehicles of all types were destroyed in Grozny and 80 of them were tanks. Tanks which were sent in city in New Year Eve as to parade with commanders sitting outside until they got into the trap and whole hell broke loose. Taking in mind non properly equipped tanks without ERA and fire suppression systems.
In second Chechen campaign only 10 tanks were lost INCLUDING non-combat losses.
@Waltham1892 "The day they tank the manual triggers off the guns, I will."
Who told you that remotely operated MGs on Russian tanks can't be fired manually? Of course they can :)
Who said that RWS can't have mechanical trigger?
Even coaxial MGs have one.
Main guns have electric and manual triggers. But here we were talking about AA MGs. And as you can see US and Germany place RWS on their tanks ESPECIALLY for urban warfare (TUSK, PSO)! As much as you personally might don't like it.
What you were saying, if you recall, is that crews can be just as effective under armor as they can be unbuttoned. You also said that only the T/C need to observe.
Both statements are, of course, wrong and the fan-boy ardor isn't going to change that.
@Waltham1892 "three soldiers have been killed inside their tanks by roadside bombs. An additional 10 to 15 crew members have been killed while riding with their heads out of the hatch, standing on the tanks, or, in one case, by an insurgent who climbed onto the tank and shot down into the crew compartment, Tucker said."
You see. Only 3 tankers were killed inside tanks. But 5 times more when they were sitting outside.
Still waiting a link from non fan-boy. If he is not a fan-boy :)
@Waltham1892 There is no link in my page. Send it to me with Private Message, please.
Remove spaces around dot in my link and it will work.
Noone said that tanker is a safe occupation. But numbers prove you wrong. 15 killed outside, only 3 inside. Inside city any sniper will be glad to snipe TCs having half of his body outside.
"20 tanks lost is a good Russian day"
Wrong. Forget about Grozny and watch second campaign, when tanks were properly used. Less than 10 in entire campaign.
@Waltham1892 "You also said that only the T/C need to observe."
Depends when and where? Were we talking about marches or in battle? I was talking about battle in urban warfare. Driver watches where he drives, loader doesn't watch anything... he reloads, gunner watches where TC told him to engage the enemy, TC watch for new enemies as a hunter, so only TC watches all around the tank with 360dgr panoramic sights. Where am I wrong?
If you don't know what you are talking about, asking questions and listening might be wise.
You have a loader; a pair of hands, a pair of eyes, and a brain. SO, rather than put him when he can scan a sector and man a gun, he is hiding in the turret to load a gun which is already loaded.
Brilliant, General Bitnik.
The T/C is commanding the tank and communicating with his crew/wingman/platoon/company. His attention is divided. You need that crewman's eyes, up top, looking.
@Waltham1892 Can't you read more carefully? I asked you a question... On marches or in battle? You didn't answer! Loader sitting outside during battle instead of reloading the gun? Brilliant Mr. Waltham!
Again, when exactly loader and TC must stay outside? During march in columns or during battle in combat formation against deployed enemy and incoming threats?
Now if you are talking about tanks on march, then TC and loader watch outside out of their hatches. (only TC in case of Russian tanks). But when engagement starts everyone gets down under armor and buttons them up. Isn't that so? Abrams commander can get out to operate AA MG only when he is sure that he is safe and out of effective range of enemy fire. Meaning that in situations like in Grozny or Basra TC doesn't watch outside out of the hatch if he is not suicidal.
If you had a full report regarding tank losses in Grozny including how many times they were hit, by what weapons, from which directions and at which places you would be among the first who would see that AA MG is damaged almost always and quicker than any other equipment.
In Basra, 2 attacked Challengers 2 didn't fire a single round with their AA MGs. Simply because TCs couldn't get out under RPG and firearms attack.
I've read the after action report, I have the link if you want it. The Russian tanks got hit exactly where you'd expect an RPG to kill your tank, the flanks, rear, and top.
That being said, their remote MG's don't seem to have helped much, did they?
Meanwhile, the US took Bagdad with two tanks damaged (both recovered), and no fatalities among the crews.
Point is that US crews were going to battle and not for parade. Point is that US tanks were fighting there way throw and not parading to the center of the city inside organized ambush for massacre.
After Iraqi Army was defeated and counter-insurgent warfare started then suddenly Abrams got its TUSK upgrade... including remotely operated MG and ERA on sides!
700 tanks were damaged and 20 destroyed in 2004-06.
@Waltham1892 Link doesn't work right away because YT blocks posting links in comments which ends on most common domains like .com. Usually people leave spaces around the dot, when they want to post comments on YT. Take that link and remove spaces around the dot, link will work. If it doesn't I'll send it to you in PM. Or google for article
"Making the best tank better
Abrams fares well in Iraq, but safety upgrades sought"
Tactics, training, maintenance are the most important factors.
Equipment and technical specs of tanks themselves are secondary. Take a good tank and use it wrong and you have a disaster. T-80s in Grozny and Merkava in Lebanon 2006 are good examples for that.
@Waltham1892 "Oh Bull Shit. 700 tanks is about 1 out of 6 of all the M-1 tanks on active duty with the US Army."
I am not sure if you are disputing this but I would not be surprised. Being damaged could mean a variety of things. If it was slightly damaged by an RPG and then repaired in Iraq, that is not that big of a deal.
Being damaged blowing a track on mine also is not a big deal. These damages range from minor to severe. With a large war like Iraq, I am not surprised.
@franknbeans4761 As I see this guy uses same tactics like he did in other video with me. Whatever he doesn't like is flagged as spam. In this case it is your comment. I clicked on "Not Spam" button.
@BitnikGr It baffles me as to why people would do that. I was merely pointing out how the tanks could of even received minor damages and that they were for the most part repaired. I am very confused as to why he continues on with his argument. Oh well! I appreciate the help, I would do the same!
@franknbeans4761 It doesn't matter what I said, Kyle. ;) Maj. General Tucker said for 17 tanks as non repairable losses since 2003 to 2005. Number raised to 20 till 2006. But that's not big deference with what I said about "2004-2006", because only 3-4 Abrams were destroyed in combat against regular Iraqi Army in 2003 campaign. The rest of them are casualties of counter-insurgency and urban warfare. And that is the main point of this conversation. Main point of this ...
@franknbeans4761 ... conversation is that as soon as US Army saw increased damages and casualties in Abrams fleets after defeat of Iraqi Army, they quickly developed and deployed ARAT ERA and TUSK upgrades specifically for urban warfare. The main feature of TUSK upgrade is a remotely operated machine-gun. While our friend here says that in urban environment machine-gun must be operated by TC manually. :)
@BitnikGr That is in general rather foolish of him to say. Just as you said, the remotely operated M2 is the focal point of the upgrade. Many TC's were hit by sniper fire or shrapnel when exposed from the tank.
I am amazed that he would think it needs to be operated manually when not only TUSK upgrades use the M151 but so do the Stykers, MRAP's, and much more.
Obviously you might have a better field of view when exposed, but not enough to matter, especially when operating with other vehicles.
@franknbeans4761 All new fresh M1A2 coming out of factory has RWS.
At least two real stories, one from Chechnya 2000 and other from Iraq 2003 prove that TC uses remotely operated MG very successfully and that tank without remotely operated AA machine gun won't be used by TC when ambushed by infantry anyway. (Challenger2 in Basra). They killed more than 20 Iraqis by main gun and coaxial MG. Not a single round was fired by AA MG. While if TC had such ability he would use it 100%.
@Waltham1892 "You are aware that the T-95 was cancled in May of 2011?"
Yes, I know that. Thank you. Official status is "cancelled" by Russian MoD. However, UVZ company says that it is "frozen". Which means that if there will be any foreign partner willing to invest for further development of this project it may be "unfroze".
However, I doubt that there will be anyone.
T-95 is overcomplicated and too much overpriced. Russian MIC is unable to build it in large quantities.
Right now Russian tank design is currently at a dead end.
The Russians don't have the money to design a completely new tank and there is no export market for such a vehicle.
Further, because of the stocks of Russian flat cars, the Russians are limited to sub-50t weights, making them dependant on expensive tech for survivability (ERA/Laser Detectors/Active defense).
This drives up unit costs and limits the number of vehicles that can be produced.
@Waltham1892 "The Russians don't have the money to design a completely new tank"
Says who? And what are they doing exactly with Armata project, which by the way is already funded and new factory for it will be built in 2012?
It's not 90s anymore. As more oil price raises, more money Russia will have. They have a strategic rearmament plan up to 2020. Initially they left ground forces out of this plan. But since they have income surplass they started spending there too.
@Waltham1892 You have no clue about russian tanks. T72 and T90 are 1/3 smaller than usual tanks like M1,Leopard or Challanger2.It weights 47-49tones.Scale the weight and size with 1/3 you have the same weight, and also its well protected stands modern 120mm Sabots and Heat shells.
I know far more about Russian tanks than you do, young sir.
In Iraqi I inspected every Russian tank, except the T-64 of course, fought several, and won.
The best of the bunch, the T-72, has crew survivability so low that it would be a scandal in the west. To be in a T-72 when its hit is to be killed. Its that simple.
As for being small, small has not been a virtue for tanks since the 1970's. Even a tank as old as an M-60A3 can hit a 48" X 48" target at 2,500 meters.
Yes, I'm sure the Russian tanks which were killed in Grozny were far superior to the Russian made tanks we killed in Iraq,
As if there is a difference between burning tanks.
And allow me to clarrify, Gen. Bitnik, I've been in the T-55/62/and 72. I've seen the T-80 at a demonstration, and the T-84, which is a superior tank to the T-90.
Since you've never been in a tank of any sort that would make me the expert. Being an Armor Officer with combat experience also helps a bit too.
@Waltham1892 "T-84, which is a superior tank to the T-90."
How comes?
"Being an Armor Officer with combat experience"
The point is that you said so many Bullshits (with capital B), not only about Russian tanks, but even about Western ones including Abrams that I have serious doubts that you are an Armor Officer... or maybe you was 50years ago and now you lost connection with reality.
I am still waiting for you link to my PM with detailed report of Grozny losses.
@Waltham1892 Why are you even bothering to try and educate these retards? Clearly they know more about soldiering from computer games, videos and hypotheticals than any real soldier would...
My problem with the T-72 (the T-64 through T-90 really), is not which version or variant we are talking about. It is about what is common to all of them
Soviet/Russian tanks as a rule have very poor crew safety, very poor survivability, are to light and are dependant ERA, and in all but he top of the line export models, have limited FCS.
As for expense, the most expensive tank in the world is the that loses the battle and kills is crew.
@Waltham1892 Well, the doctrine the t72's were designed for was swamping in large numbers, that's why it was really cheap compared to the later m60's.
The numbers it was to be used in 'd be crippling for the nato economies to match 1vs1, and when it was relatively new it'd (usually) outgun it's opponents.
But you are correct in crews being most expensive in the west, but for a 70's soviet machine the t72 was a very efficient weapons system, and contrary to m60's still somewhat useable
You are correct; the T-72 was designed to be a relatively inexpensive tank to be deployed in large numbers to defeat the West through quantitative rather than qualitative superiority.
However, times have changed and the T-72 (and its derivatives) now finds itself without the advantage of numbers or with qualitative parity.
As for the M-60A3, the average T-72 has the advantage in armor and mobility but has an inferior FCS and survivability. The Israeli’s still use the M-60 with ERA.
@Waltham1892 btw you really ought to check out the subtitled interview with the Russian vet that fought in Chechnya wit some t-80 that got immobilised after multiple rpg"27" strikes and managed to whipe out the attacking rpg team.
the best thing is they actually filmed the guy sitting on the tank, showing the battle damage it got.
Indeed mw with t72's is limited to convoy escort and reaction force in big numbers.
The t90s or latest m84 are ok if your facing older stuff mostly
@Waltham1892 I'm not that certain the latest versions of the 125mm cannons are that bad FCS equipped; the ATGM capability (4000+ metres) 'd need sophisticated equipment anyway i think.(+ that sort of ranges are luxury too IMO)
As this systems are mainly late/post soviet designed it'll most likely be pretty useable, and it's current useability 'd be like say a (t84/t90/m84ab1)=like m4 vs panther(m1/leo) in normandy if used by pro's where possible.The Ts NV gear is also less capable then NATOs
The tube launced missile used by the Russians is not an ATGW. Its to light to be effective against heavy armor. I don't even think it would punch the front of a Russian tank.
We always thought the missile for ATGM platforms like APC's and Helo's.
Given the problems with crew safety and survivability, the T-84 and T-90 would not be my first choice in tank v. tank combat.
Broken tanks I can recover and repair, you can't do that with a dead crew.
@Waltham1892 quite true, but in numbers on an outranged (and then somewhat damaged) enemy is a nice perk.
Personally i think the Russians ought to equip their next tank with a 25/30mm cannon, instead of the 7,62 and 12,7MGs too.
And 25% less crew could mean 25% more tanks on your team, and if they're equippeded with improved Drozhd or Arena like systems they are far from being death-traps.
T72 and T72A are deathtraps T72B with era is almost good, which is nice for infantry support and such.
Problem is, with HEAT rounds you aren't going to seriously damage an MBT these days. You are going to alert the crew you are within gun range and attract their attention. Not sure I'd want to do that with 1/40 of my ammo load.
As for a 25mm cannon. Not a lot of spare space in a tank turret for the gun's breach and ammo storage. If you put the gun on the turret roof you make the tank several feet taller and just that much harder to hide.
@Waltham1892 that's true, but is saw a Slovak(?) AA T72 with dual 30mm, which is somewhat close
but the barrel of the cannon should be a bit above the optics, like the israeli's used for their m60 co-ax training .50MG set up, but more to the rear of the vehicle.
Two MGs and their ammo are also weak spots, and take up space yet suck at 600+metres, and i wouldn't like to shoot at two attack helo's with HEAT and 12,7mm ;)
What could you want to shoot at 600mm that can be killed by a 30mm but not a 125? And where on a Russian tank can you store 30mm ammo?
You shoot HEAT at a Helo because its a low cost option. Frag would require special fusing you don't want to carry around in a tank, APDS requires better FCS and tubes then the Russians want to buy, and the Russians don't used HESH.
Buy adding additional turrets you are adding weight, complexity, cost, maintanece and crew training issues.
Given that Russian tanks are hitting their max weight, and Western tanks their max costs, I don't think you are going to see multiple turret vehicles any time soon.
@Waltham1892 not an additional turret, they should use their new prototype hulls(where all crewmembers are located) and use a new unmanned turret without MGs weakening the front of the turret, and opt for using a fast cannon for infantry/air targets.
That would involve designing a whole new vehicle from the ground up. The Russians have been unwilling to do that.
A tank designed along the lines your are discussing would result in a fewer tankers per tank company, but it you would require more tank mechanics and support troops because there is no way a two man crew is going to keep a tank running.
The US did a design study of a two man M-1 variant with a remote turret, We dropped the idea.
@Waltham1892 I don't think any tank should have less then 3 crew, as this 'll negatively influence situational awareness (having 3 is allready less effective then 4).
As for designing a whole new vehicle, the Russian are planning to do that; they themselves call the T90 a in between model.
Opting for a single co-ax type autocannon 'll simplify maintenance and and add limited AA capability
Also a small cannon's curved trajectory makes you able to engage armour hiding behind hilly terrain
I don't know about adding an AA capability. The elevation of the main gun in a Russian tank is nothing I'd brag about.
I think there would be a VERY large cone shaped area over a Russian tank which a cannon coax would not be able to cover.
As for engaging targets behind a hill, if you can't see it how are you going to hit it? Why not just call in arty rather than give your position away with blind fire?
@Waltham1892 "Given Russian loses in Grozny;" - Totally irrelevant. Given utilized tactics, existing threats and statistics of battle in Grozny AA MG on top is one of the first casualties of one MBT. It doesn't live long in urban environment regardless if it is manned or not.
"I know the US has given up on the idea."
Yeah... right. Somehow US and German upgrades for urban warfare do exactly this - they place remotely operated MGs. M1A2 TUSK, M1A2 SEP, Leo 2 PSO, Leo 2A7+.
@ViciousCritique Nope, never gonna happen. Keep on playing with downgraded ,T-55's,Chinese copies of them, and T-72M's in Iraq,they are obviously not even made in Russia (Made in Ukraine and Czech),and T-55 is VERY OLD(obviously target practice). Also, the real T-72B is 1000x more capable than what you fight in Middle East.
@999cheetos999 Granted that the T-55 is still quite old, it is still used in some roles with Russia. Along with the T-62, one of which (in Russian use) was destroyed in the battle of Tskhinvali. They are tanks that are widely used & even though the US went up against inferior tanks; it should still be considered. Not to stand up for an idiot like ViciousCritique, but I was just pointing something out.
@franknbeans4761 The T-55 is used for training crews, and random things like being in a Snickers commercial or in the dump crushing cars...T-62's however are still in use,but mostly small operations where even the T-90 is too overpowered to be used (small counter terror ops)..they are formidable against infantry. Most T-62's are in storage too,only 100 remain active in Russia
@999cheetos999 No I know, I was merely pointing out how the T-62 & the T-55 is still a tank that is very widely used & still has their place occasionally on the battlefield. So if they are encountered in a battlefield, I think the results are still noteworthy, especially since a T-72M is usually better than most T-62's out there.
@franknbeans4761 Last week I got pictures and description of most of destroyed equipment in S. Ossetia. There was that T-62 too. It was destroyed at August 8 in Tskhinvali and it belong to S. Ossetian National Guards. Meaning that it was destroyed before Russian 58th Army passed Caucasus and it wasn't operated by Russian Army.
Despite that 58th Army also had T-62s in its arsenal and some of them were caught on camera on check-points.
Aww, all the Abrams haters are coming out of their holes, how sad, most of them don't even live in Russia, To bad to see that this tank was cancelled because Russia couldn't afford just like the T-50, Russia is going to be history when china conquers it.
@SpiderDroid2 So you "should" be Russian to be an Abrams hater? No we just know more about tanks better than you, you should study them both to know why we say these things instead of relying on CNN/American propaganda. The cancelled project "Black Eagle" was supposed to be T-90 today, but the real T-90 won and was a better tank overall. This tank however is not canceled and will be finished in a few years. Also, I heard that your whole fleet of F-22 and F-35's are grounded?
@vvsector1 M1A3 will have new lightweight armor packages, new electronics like boomerang anti sniper system, rpg quick kill, and many other things. They plan on dropping the weight of the tank down to 58 to 60 tons. Here in the USA we build war machines, not Russia, dont take our line. Thats why thousands or Russian tanks and vehicles have been destroyed, take a look in Iraq, thats where they belong, destroyed in the sand. Tank with a 152mm gun, just use a fucken howitzer.
@tonygogap BTW, another thing no T-90A VLADIMIR were lost in the battle of Dagestan against the second Chechen war. The Chechen terrorists got massive casualties facing these quick-silvers. Only two T-90 were battle damage : 1 got hit by 7 shots of RPG-7 and sustain no damage thanks to the ERA armor, the second got shot by 4 RPG-29 it was heavily damage, but was able to fight back and return to base for repair. Only 12 T-90A were used in this blood-shedding war. HE-FRAG and Thermobar shells fuck
@tonygogap Yeah you only face downgraded T-72 tanks Iraqi built Assad Babil. Easy to talk shit. Now your facing handheld RPGs and IEDs that are fucking up your Abrams. XD
@SuperRatchetclank If we took T-90's into Iraq, we would lose hundreds. Ive seen Abrams tanks take very large IED's and the crew come out with only minor injuries. If a T-90 hit an IED it would be burnt to a crisp and you know that. The T-90 has no armor on the sides and back of the turret, it would be taken out by rpg-7's! No need to talk about the t-72 and t-80, both are the same as t-90. Russian tanks have always been junk because they are cheap and easy to produce.
@tonygogap T-90 has armor everywhere so they dont blow up by getting hit randomly in a URBAN COMBAT field. Your Abrams, a hit by an RPG in the sides and back is instant damage or killed. What is the next solution for that heavy piece of scrap: is to further destroy it 15 millions of dollars put to the drain for one Abrams, but what happens to the other hundreds been damage and destroyed. 1500 millions dollars burned in the air. Repair another 8 millions dollars for each ''if they can repair it''
@tonygogap Many Russian tanks destroyed? Looks at Gerogia, NATO supported Georgia with western tanks, even M1 was on field, T90 ripped them apart. Why NATO countries choose M1? Because it is cheaper to get that, because they are part of NATO, many ex-enemies of Russia, like Afghanistan and other countries buy Russia's tech, because it has better quality.
By the way, M1A2 was getting destroyed by old T72 in Iraq.
@Gioconda092 You are a massive fucking idiot. Georgia never used american tanks ever thats a straight out fucken lie. The M1 is not cheaper than the T-90 idiot. Also no T-72 destroyed an Abrams tank in battle ever, no M1 Abrams tank has been destroyed by another tank in history, only by Large IED's so shut the fuck up retard.
@tonygogap Its not about the height, its the weight and size to keep the stabilization of the main 152mm gun. Such gun of this magnitude with its massive turret ring can fuck literrally an Abram from many Km. This tank is estimated to weight more than the Abrams. Ammunition compartment must be large to carry these SABOT KE rods and as well larger ATGMs. The tracks of T-95 looks quite large enough to run on muddy grounds. BTW, T-90AM will have as well a 140mm gun version of its own.
@Nickael7 Well i am not going to underestimate this tank because we know no very little about it so I will wait until they reveal it. I looked up the T-90am and it said it has a 125mm cannon, i saw some pics too, I think your mistaken.
@tonygogap Read every file you will see that there is going to be probably 2 versions of it. T-95 is a classified heavy tank it is going to come like around in ~2015~2017 or so. BTW, this T-95 as you look it, it is incomplete, the turret is missing its cupola to protect the integrity of the mechanism and electronics.
@Gioconda092 I already proved you are a retard so why do you bother responding back to me? You're just trying to make yourself feel better because you know I made you look like a complete idiot so you take my vulgar words and try and turn shit around. You made up a stupid lie and I proved you wrong, thats all there is to it.
@tonygogap You proved me as retard? How? By calling me names? Me saying vulgar words? Dude do you understand that you are pathetic, look at your comments :D You are acting liek a clown.
@Gioconda092 I already explained to you that no T-90's ever destroyed m1 Abrams tanks in the ossetia war in 2008 nor did they get destroyed by t-72's in Iraq. Your a freaken lying pain in my ass so dont respond to me again.
@tonygogap Crying bitch already? You doint watch your own media? FUcking Americans, talk too much, when it comes to deal with problems, then just make shit.
@Gioconda092 Get a fucking life bum, I didn't start shit, you're the piece of shit who started talking to me. Obviously you are trying to make a fool out of me because I made a fool out of you because you said something stupid about american tanks in Georgia destroyed by T-90's and destroyed m1 Abrams by Iraqi t-72's which both never happened. I dont know what more you want me to say, obviously you just like to argue with people on the internet. Goodbye dickface.
@vvsector1 M1A3 is under development, 2014 prototypes will be revealed and then fielded by 2017. T-95 looks like a bulky T-72 and a regurgitated T-90. This thing is going to be a pile of shit just like every other Russian tank out there.
@tonygogap Although the Obekt/Object 195 (T-95) was cancelled in Q2 2010 the Project still remains a Government secret. Uralvagonzavod has stated that they would finalize and continue development on the Obekt/Object 195 (T-95) albeit without government funding post Q2 Cancellation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DEFCONStudios The M1A3 Abrams will beat the shit out of this thing, I read Russia wont buy it or let them export it, so whats the point of even making this thing.
@tonygogap There is an obvious shift in the Russian Federation in their Doctrine from employing mass numbers IE quantity to quality as is evident today with their massive modernization programmes and their military reforms. The T-95 (Object 195) Tank Programme was undertaken in the mid-1990's using Data gathered from experimental combat platforms in the 1980's as a replacement for the Russian Third Generation main battle tanks currently in service.
@tonygogap The M1A3 is a joke compare to the size and power of the T-95. This Behemoth stands 3.7 meters tall and overshadows your blocky Abrams. You're really one ignorant guy. The 152mm gun bustle turret has a massive turret ring to shoot massive SABOTS with very large propellant charge. Kinetic energy of such gun is enough to rip apart your Abrams and still the projectile will pass through the other side to damage anything in its way. T-95 is built for quality not quantity.
@Nickael7 All you have to do is put a damn radar inside a M109 Paladin tank, give it a guided round and basically it can hit any target from 20 miles away. Thats what the Russians are trying to do with this tank is give it the capability to shoot from far away. If we could put a 140mm cannon on an m1, we can put a 155mm on one too. You go from low tanks to high tanks because you know height doesn't mean shit, just like tall western tanks, which many Russian criticized.
@Nickael7 russia builds junk equipment because their customers can only afford cheap stuff... although it is getting marginally better... i like thier helicopters
@gxbmb I wouldn't say that, their vehicles are getting much better, firepower and mobility at is best. T-90S export cost only 2.5 millions $, but a T-90A cost 4.4 millions $, depends the model you want. Russia has shift their military doctrine (since Putin administration) of mass-cheap production to better quality low production.
@tonygogap The M1a2 is already one of the shittiest modern tanks, don't think it will get any better with a new upgrade, which will most likely put a new engine and some more armor. The T90 beats M1a2 hands down. This thing with a 152mm gun would just rape it.
@Aaidas2 your stupid and you are a waste of my time so i will say this once only. The T-90 is such a piece of shit it can be penetrated in the frontal arch by a rpg-29, there, thats my evidence. Please dont waste any more of my time cause you will have nothing to say but stating your opinion.
@tonygogap Lol, then why it survived 7 direct frontal Rpg 29 hits in daegestan in the 1990's? And was prooved that it's pretty much immune to rpg7's? That was like 11 years ago, the armor on it only advanced... Move on mate, keep listening to us propaganda...
@Aaidas2 First of all dumbass, the Moscow defense brief never said what type of rpg's they were, second they couldn't have been rpg-29's because the Russian's have already released that rpg-29's have penetrated both the T-80 and T-90 with kontakt- 5 in military test's. Kontakt 5 is worthless to newer and improved M829A1 sabot rounds, such as (M829A2,A3, and soon E4), these three. All the T-90 is a T-72 with composite and reactive armor, nothing technologically advanced, get it through your head.
@tonygogap You're fucking ignorant those T-90A were equipped with state of the art 4e generation ERA Relikt-1 and Kaktus, plus they have a better armor protection of ceramics, cermets -Wofradium carbide-, non-explosive reactive plastics, 4e grade kevlar liners with anti-penetrating gels, inconel and hard steel. Which is why this tank weight only 47 tons vs. 68 tons Abrams with old cheap toxic DU. The 4e gen. ERA is design to counter the M829A2A3, while the 5e Kaktus is made against the A4 round.
музыка не из generals случайно???
StrelokRuS29VaR 2 weeks ago
Пока что т95 это фантазия художника.
OnlySkupe 3 weeks ago
@OnlySkupe Существует как минимум в одном экземпляре. Однако программа закрыта в пользу "Арматы".
MrGoroshi 3 weeks ago
@MrGoroshi У меня такое ощущение как будто Россия начинает набирать обороты, к примеру сейчас выпустили новый истрибитель, повысили зарплату военным, всё это намекает на то что возможна война, и нужны люди которые будут воевать.
OnlySkupe 3 weeks ago
@OnlySkupe Напряжение в Мире действительно растёт. Новый истребитель еще не о чём не говорит. Но вот массовая модернизация старой техники и перевод ВСЕЙ Армии на части постоянной готовности, может являться знаком некой нервозности среди военно-политического руководства. Так же как и значительные усилия по восстановлению военно-промышленного комплекса.
MrGoroshi 2 weeks ago
это что было????? хрень!!!
Kalamalakan 4 weeks ago
Размывчатый, но эфекты норм +1*. :)
DOLGgenerals 1 month ago
i don't see a shit!
kuisku1 1 month ago
Remove the fucken lines .. You putted it 1080p and is like 36p .
TheKifinas 1 month ago
1080P HD in this vid is just an USELESS and meaningless promo. Special effects removes all details, which are available on original photos.
A simple slideshow with original photos would be more interesting :)
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Ээх... Какой чёткий танк, но пока у нас министром обороны будет Сердюков, то на вооружение нашей армии у них не выпросишь денег даже на Т-90МС. Всё бабло в карман гребут, на страну плюют, а потом за бугор свалят.
ALXBLK94 4 months ago
это все на основе фото из статьи - btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html
btvtnarodru 4 months ago
All BS aside, this design appears to be superior to the T-90. The ammo looks like it was moved from the hull to a bussel at the rear of the turret, which if the ammo was stored in a M-1 style strong box, would have gone a long way to solving Russian tanks survivability problems.
I can only assume the tank was not put into production because of weight (Russian rolling stock can only transport 40T class tanks), and the T-95's unit cost.
Russia went with the inferior tank.
Waltham1892 5 months ago
@Waltham1892 The most important feature of T-95 over any other existing tank today is its unmanned turret. Russian railway network can support up to 50t. If it was limited to 40, then all tanks since T64 would be overweight.
There is a Greek saying "Pan Metron Ariston" meaning "Everything is fine with measure. You can't go with overcomplicated and overpriced state-of-art design when your industry can build only 10 of them per year. That would be a failure.
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
From the picture of the T-95, here and elsewhere, you can see that the turret is manned. Its far to large for just sensors and an autoloader; views of the turret top show a gunner and commander's hatch in the typical Soviet/Russian configuration.
And yes, Russian rolling stock can handle tanks up to 50t, which limits Russian tanks to 50t and under. In my previous posting I phrased the poorly.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ...
That's why Russia choose intermediate solution of Armata, which will have T-90 chassis probably, but modular design for FOV creation, some technologies borrowed from T-95. What is the most important is if Armata will also feature unmanned turret or if it will have classic combat compartment as we know it today.
So, if in 2015 Russian MIC will be able to build 100 Armata per year, it is sure better solution than 10 T-95.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Again, the turret of the T-95 is manned.
Going with an unmanned turret is not as easy as it sounds. Crew workload goes way up, the ability to operate in close environments (like urban) where turret top MG's need to be manned becomes a problem, as does crew/platoon/company level maintenance.
Given Russian loses in Grozny; I don't think they are seriously entertaining the idea any longer. I know the US has given up on the idea.
In any case, the T-95 is not going to see production.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "Again, the turret of the T-95 is manned"
Any source to back up your statement? Till now all sources, including UVZ factory speak about unmanned turret and that's why they made it so tall. Its height doesn't compromise crew survivability anymore.
"in close environments (like urban) where turret top MG's need to be manned"
Who said that top MG must be manned and not remotely operated. Russians have AA MGs remotely operated and fully stabilized since T-64.
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Yes, an image search on Google will show that, among the various tanks called the T-95, the most recent all have crew hatches in the expected locations on the turret.
There was a turretless design study with an unmanned turret, just as there is one for the M-1, but both seem to have gone no where.
Grozny says that guns need to be manned. The limited field of view offered by remote sensors or vision blocks gets crews killed.
You are aware that the T-95 was cancled in May of 2011?
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "image search on Google" - HAHA! Nice "source". Google image search show only imaginations of some "authors" how T-95 would look like and many times Black Eagle is mistakenly presented as T-95.
There are very few real pictures of real T-95 prototype and most of them are here. And here (btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html). Can you see any "crew hatches" there? There is one for ammo loading.
3man crew sits in isolated armored capsule inside the hull. That was the concept.
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
Given that we can not identify which tank is the T-95, and given that official sources say that the T-95 has been canceled, what is there left to say about the T-95?
Waltham1892 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 "Given that we can not identify which tank is the T-95"
Anyone who looks at Google Images sure can't identify real T-95. :)
T-95 is a tank presented in this video and at URL mentioned above.
"what is there left to say about the T-95"
Pure technologically? About solutions and concepts implemented in it. Like NLOS cannon for US FCS project for example. Despite it is canceled as project, T-95 remains a single existing 4th generation MBT prototype.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "Grozny says that guns need to be manned."
For what? In order to get killed faster? T-72/80 TC operates machine gun remotely from inside and much more effectively, because that MG is connected to tank's FCS and commander has full stabilization of MG and sights and night-vision (or thermal sights later).
In Grozny any exterior equipment on tank became useless after several RPGs. Just like Challengers 2 blinded in Basra in 2003. They didn't fire a single shot with AA MG.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
I love talking tanks with people who read about tanks, but have never crewed one...
What keeps a crew alive in close combat is being aware of what is around them. Being buttoned up limits your field of view to a few degrees and no gun traverses faster than I can turn my head.
Once you give button up your enemy can be standing on top of you and you'd never seen them.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Observation and situational awareness is a job for TC and TC has all needed instruments for that without putting his head out of tank. He doesn't need to traverse tank's turret. He has 6-8 prismatic sights in his Commander's turret. He has independent commander's sight (with night vision or thermals) and zoom. All these gives him much more possibilities than looking outside by naked eyes.
Yes, you are write, I am not a tank crew member. However, I've read testimonies..
BitnikGr 1 month ago
You've read the wrong testimonies...
As a Tank Commander, Platoon Leader, XO, Asst S-3, and S-3, I'm telling you that observation is the duty of every crew member, with each crew member scanning an assigned sector.
The T/C, because his attention is divided between his sight, the radio, the battlefield, his map, and supervising the crew, is perhaps the least effective at visual scanning.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ... and witnesses of real tankers, including ones operating in Chechnya in first and second campaign. I never see opinion that AA MG must be operated by commander placing his body in danger outside of tank's armor. As I said before, US and Germany moves in this direction (placing remotely operated AA MGs on top), despite you stated otherwise. Search for new M1A2 SEP versions... guess what they have? :) Every tank building country is wrong I suppose.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
If I wanted an advice on how to operate tanks in an urban environment, I would not ask the tankers in Chechnya. 140 of 200 tanks lost in Grozny. That is a whole Division's worth of tanks and crews.
An amateur thinks that a tank is like a armored womb and once you are buttoned up no one can hurt you.
WRONG.
You are safer with your head up, looking for your enemy, then you are trying to peak at him through vision blocks.
140 Russian tank crews would agree with that.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Your numbers are wrong. Can you provide source for "140 of 200"?
225 armored vehicles of all types were destroyed in Grozny and 80 of them were tanks. Tanks which were sent in city in New Year Eve as to parade with commanders sitting outside until they got into the trap and whole hell broke loose. Taking in mind non properly equipped tanks without ERA and fire suppression systems.
In second Chechen campaign only 10 tanks were lost INCLUDING non-combat losses.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
I've read the after action report, so spare me the fan boy noise.
Here is how the Russians managed to rack up their loses:
1. Send your tanks in buttoned up and the infantry mounted.
2. Send them in in collums so there is no over watch and you get boxed in when they kill your lead and trail vehicles.
3. Use composite units to fragment your chain of command.
4. Employ your tanks where you can't recover them.
5. Make sure your logistics folks are the worst people you can find.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Yeap... that's true. Under such conditions either you have RWS, either you have manually operated AA MG is irrelevant.
Tanks were not buttoned up when they got inside city.
Still waiting for your link to see those "140 of 200"... Thank you in advance.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ...
Why don't you go to GDLS and complain to them that what they are doing with M1A2 SEP and TUSK is WRONG!
Somehow all upgrades for "urban warfare" implement Remote Weapon System...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
The day they tank the manual triggers off the guns, I will.
Listen, you want to cruise around the battlefield with your head down, be my guest.
More than one T-72 crewman has met God that way, why should I deprive you of that chance?
Say hello to the old boy for me.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "The day they tank the manual triggers off the guns, I will."
Who told you that remotely operated MGs on Russian tanks can't be fired manually? Of course they can :)
Who said that RWS can't have mechanical trigger?
Even coaxial MGs have one.
Main guns have electric and manual triggers. But here we were talking about AA MGs. And as you can see US and Germany place RWS on their tanks ESPECIALLY for urban warfare (TUSK, PSO)! As much as you personally might don't like it.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
What you were saying, if you recall, is that crews can be just as effective under armor as they can be unbuttoned. You also said that only the T/C need to observe.
Both statements are, of course, wrong and the fan-boy ardor isn't going to change that.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "three soldiers have been killed inside their tanks by roadside bombs. An additional 10 to 15 crew members have been killed while riding with their heads out of the hatch, standing on the tanks, or, in one case, by an insurgent who climbed onto the tank and shot down into the crew compartment, Tucker said."
You see. Only 3 tankers were killed inside tanks. But 5 times more when they were sitting outside.
Still waiting a link from non fan-boy. If he is not a fan-boy :)
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
I posted the link to your comments section. You should find it there, if not let me know and I will try sending it again.
By the way, you link was no good.
You seem to be under the illusion that being a tanker in war is a safe occupation. It isn't.
You also seem to ignore that fact that "20" M-1's have been destroyed in as many years.
20 tanks lost is a good Russian day according to the after action report.
Again, fan boys don't have to see it the way tankers do.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 There is no link in my page. Send it to me with Private Message, please.
Remove spaces around dot in my link and it will work.
Noone said that tanker is a safe occupation. But numbers prove you wrong. 15 killed outside, only 3 inside. Inside city any sniper will be glad to snipe TCs having half of his body outside.
"20 tanks lost is a good Russian day"
Wrong. Forget about Grozny and watch second campaign, when tanks were properly used. Less than 10 in entire campaign.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "You also said that only the T/C need to observe."
Depends when and where? Were we talking about marches or in battle? I was talking about battle in urban warfare. Driver watches where he drives, loader doesn't watch anything... he reloads, gunner watches where TC told him to engage the enemy, TC watch for new enemies as a hunter, so only TC watches all around the tank with 360dgr panoramic sights. Where am I wrong?
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
If you don't know what you are talking about, asking questions and listening might be wise.
You have a loader; a pair of hands, a pair of eyes, and a brain. SO, rather than put him when he can scan a sector and man a gun, he is hiding in the turret to load a gun which is already loaded.
Brilliant, General Bitnik.
The T/C is commanding the tank and communicating with his crew/wingman/platoon/company. His attention is divided. You need that crewman's eyes, up top, looking.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Can't you read more carefully? I asked you a question... On marches or in battle? You didn't answer! Loader sitting outside during battle instead of reloading the gun? Brilliant Mr. Waltham!
Again, when exactly loader and TC must stay outside? During march in columns or during battle in combat formation against deployed enemy and incoming threats?
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ...
Now if you are talking about tanks on march, then TC and loader watch outside out of their hatches. (only TC in case of Russian tanks). But when engagement starts everyone gets down under armor and buttons them up. Isn't that so? Abrams commander can get out to operate AA MG only when he is sure that he is safe and out of effective range of enemy fire. Meaning that in situations like in Grozny or Basra TC doesn't watch outside out of the hatch if he is not suicidal.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "Wrong testimonies" - Good one :)))
If you had a full report regarding tank losses in Grozny including how many times they were hit, by what weapons, from which directions and at which places you would be among the first who would see that AA MG is damaged almost always and quicker than any other equipment.
In Basra, 2 attacked Challengers 2 didn't fire a single round with their AA MGs. Simply because TCs couldn't get out under RPG and firearms attack.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
I've read the after action report, I have the link if you want it. The Russian tanks got hit exactly where you'd expect an RPG to kill your tank, the flanks, rear, and top.
That being said, their remote MG's don't seem to have helped much, did they?
Meanwhile, the US took Bagdad with two tanks damaged (both recovered), and no fatalities among the crews.
Point made. Any questions?
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Yes! I want that link.
"Meanwhile, the US took Bagdad..."
Point is that US crews were going to battle and not for parade. Point is that US tanks were fighting there way throw and not parading to the center of the city inside organized ambush for massacre.
After Iraqi Army was defeated and counter-insurgent warfare started then suddenly Abrams got its TUSK upgrade... including remotely operated MG and ERA on sides!
700 tanks were damaged and 20 destroyed in 2004-06.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
700 tanks were damaged? 20 Destroyed?
Oh Bull Shit. 700 tanks is about 1 out of 6 of all the M-1 tanks on active duty with the US Army.
Please, don't waste my time.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 70% of Abrams deployed in Iraq. Those are not my words, but words of Maj. Gen. Terry Tucker, February 2005.
Here is entire interview.
armytimes . com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-693226.php
Main point is that that vast majority of all these tanks being hit happened since 2004 and later... meaning in counter-insurgency and urban warfare.
If you don't believe your own American General and your own American designers in GDLS it's not my problem, right? :)
BitnikGr 1 month ago 2
I don't know why I'm suprised, but the link you posted does not work.
And again, you want to cruise around the battle field looking at it through a 12 degree by 4 degree vision block, feel free.
The tankers in Grozny sure seemed to like doing that, as did the Iraqi's.
We American's don't like doing that. Maybe thats why we are alive and they aren't.
Well, maybe better equipment, training, support, supply, and doctrine helped a bit too.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Link doesn't work right away because YT blocks posting links in comments which ends on most common domains like .com. Usually people leave spaces around the dot, when they want to post comments on YT. Take that link and remove spaces around the dot, link will work. If it doesn't I'll send it to you in PM. Or google for article
"Making the best tank better
Abrams fares well in Iraq, but safety upgrades sought"
...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ...
Tactics, training, maintenance are the most important factors.
Equipment and technical specs of tanks themselves are secondary. Take a good tank and use it wrong and you have a disaster. T-80s in Grozny and Merkava in Lebanon 2006 are good examples for that.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Agreed...
Waltham1892 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 "Oh Bull Shit. 700 tanks is about 1 out of 6 of all the M-1 tanks on active duty with the US Army."
I am not sure if you are disputing this but I would not be surprised. Being damaged could mean a variety of things. If it was slightly damaged by an RPG and then repaired in Iraq, that is not that big of a deal.
Being damaged blowing a track on mine also is not a big deal. These damages range from minor to severe. With a large war like Iraq, I am not surprised.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 As I see this guy uses same tactics like he did in other video with me. Whatever he doesn't like is flagged as spam. In this case it is your comment. I clicked on "Not Spam" button.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr It baffles me as to why people would do that. I was merely pointing out how the tanks could of even received minor damages and that they were for the most part repaired. I am very confused as to why he continues on with his argument. Oh well! I appreciate the help, I would do the same!
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@BitnikGr "700 tanks were damaged and 20 destroyed in 2004-06."
I thought you said 20 were destroyed between 2003-2006, not 2004-2006. Is that a typo and if not how many were lost in 2003?
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 It doesn't matter what I said, Kyle. ;) Maj. General Tucker said for 17 tanks as non repairable losses since 2003 to 2005. Number raised to 20 till 2006. But that's not big deference with what I said about "2004-2006", because only 3-4 Abrams were destroyed in combat against regular Iraqi Army in 2003 campaign. The rest of them are casualties of counter-insurgency and urban warfare. And that is the main point of this conversation. Main point of this ...
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr Ah I understand! No problem, when conflicts die down and end, real numbers eventually are released. Iraq will be the same way.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 ... conversation is that as soon as US Army saw increased damages and casualties in Abrams fleets after defeat of Iraqi Army, they quickly developed and deployed ARAT ERA and TUSK upgrades specifically for urban warfare. The main feature of TUSK upgrade is a remotely operated machine-gun. While our friend here says that in urban environment machine-gun must be operated by TC manually. :)
From this point the whole debate started.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr That is in general rather foolish of him to say. Just as you said, the remotely operated M2 is the focal point of the upgrade. Many TC's were hit by sniper fire or shrapnel when exposed from the tank.
I am amazed that he would think it needs to be operated manually when not only TUSK upgrades use the M151 but so do the Stykers, MRAP's, and much more.
Obviously you might have a better field of view when exposed, but not enough to matter, especially when operating with other vehicles.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 All new fresh M1A2 coming out of factory has RWS.
At least two real stories, one from Chechnya 2000 and other from Iraq 2003 prove that TC uses remotely operated MG very successfully and that tank without remotely operated AA machine gun won't be used by TC when ambushed by infantry anyway. (Challenger2 in Basra). They killed more than 20 Iraqis by main gun and coaxial MG. Not a single round was fired by AA MG. While if TC had such ability he would use it 100%.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "You are aware that the T-95 was cancled in May of 2011?"
Yes, I know that. Thank you. Official status is "cancelled" by Russian MoD. However, UVZ company says that it is "frozen". Which means that if there will be any foreign partner willing to invest for further development of this project it may be "unfroze".
However, I doubt that there will be anyone.
T-95 is overcomplicated and too much overpriced. Russian MIC is unable to build it in large quantities.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Right now Russian tank design is currently at a dead end.
The Russians don't have the money to design a completely new tank and there is no export market for such a vehicle.
Further, because of the stocks of Russian flat cars, the Russians are limited to sub-50t weights, making them dependant on expensive tech for survivability (ERA/Laser Detectors/Active defense).
This drives up unit costs and limits the number of vehicles that can be produced.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "The Russians don't have the money to design a completely new tank"
Says who? And what are they doing exactly with Armata project, which by the way is already funded and new factory for it will be built in 2012?
It's not 90s anymore. As more oil price raises, more money Russia will have. They have a strategic rearmament plan up to 2020. Initially they left ground forces out of this plan. But since they have income surplass they started spending there too.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Russian military spending has been down for years. Its going to take years to bring their hardware up to standard, and then year to train troops.
One of the key factors in Grozny was the collapse of the Russian NCO and Junior Officer corps.
In the area of tank design, if the Russians want to build a tank over 50 tons they are going to need to replace thousands of rail cars.
This is why the Russians have been leaning on their nukes, so to speak.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 You have no clue about russian tanks. T72 and T90 are 1/3 smaller than usual tanks like M1,Leopard or Challanger2.It weights 47-49tones.Scale the weight and size with 1/3 you have the same weight, and also its well protected stands modern 120mm Sabots and Heat shells.
Talshet 1 month ago
I know far more about Russian tanks than you do, young sir.
In Iraqi I inspected every Russian tank, except the T-64 of course, fought several, and won.
The best of the bunch, the T-72, has crew survivability so low that it would be a scandal in the west. To be in a T-72 when its hit is to be killed. Its that simple.
As for being small, small has not been a virtue for tanks since the 1970's. Even a tank as old as an M-60A3 can hit a 48" X 48" target at 2,500 meters.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "I know far more about Russian tanks"
Till now you said so many things wrong about Soviet tanks, that I've lost a count.
"In Iraqi I inspected every Russian tank except the T-64"
Even T-80 and T-90?
"the T-72, has crew survivability so low"
As a REAL tanker and REAL expert you don't imply that T-72M in Iraq are the same with T-72A and T-72B of Soviets... Or maybe you do?
PS: I sent you a PM with link to Tucker's interview. Still waiting for your link about "140".
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Yes, I'm sure the Russian tanks which were killed in Grozny were far superior to the Russian made tanks we killed in Iraq,
As if there is a difference between burning tanks.
And allow me to clarrify, Gen. Bitnik, I've been in the T-55/62/and 72. I've seen the T-80 at a demonstration, and the T-84, which is a superior tank to the T-90.
Since you've never been in a tank of any sort that would make me the expert. Being an Armor Officer with combat experience also helps a bit too.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 "T-84, which is a superior tank to the T-90."
How comes?
"Being an Armor Officer with combat experience"
The point is that you said so many Bullshits (with capital B), not only about Russian tanks, but even about Western ones including Abrams that I have serious doubts that you are an Armor Officer... or maybe you was 50years ago and now you lost connection with reality.
I am still waiting for you link to my PM with detailed report of Grozny losses.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Why are you even bothering to try and educate these retards? Clearly they know more about soldiering from computer games, videos and hypotheticals than any real soldier would...
sn0tub 1 month ago
@sn0tub
I pay a flat fee for internet service. So, I might as well get as much use out of my monthly fee as I can.
What I do is let the rave on about what they think they know, and then beat them to death with what the truth is
Then, I hit the block button and engage the next target.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Weren't the Iraqi T72's locally built types with other armour then "all" other T72's produced?
Also theý were based on the first generation which 'd be inferior to the b series even if it would have effective armour.
The 125mm anti armour round mainly used by the Iraqi armed forces is also said to have been phased out by the USSR in '73...
Now i'm not saying i'd be very confident in any t72, unless it's 3 vs 1 what it was designed for anyway
m60a3 was way more expensive btw
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
My problem with the T-72 (the T-64 through T-90 really), is not which version or variant we are talking about. It is about what is common to all of them
Soviet/Russian tanks as a rule have very poor crew safety, very poor survivability, are to light and are dependant ERA, and in all but he top of the line export models, have limited FCS.
As for expense, the most expensive tank in the world is the that loses the battle and kills is crew.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Well, the doctrine the t72's were designed for was swamping in large numbers, that's why it was really cheap compared to the later m60's.
The numbers it was to be used in 'd be crippling for the nato economies to match 1vs1, and when it was relatively new it'd (usually) outgun it's opponents.
But you are correct in crews being most expensive in the west, but for a 70's soviet machine the t72 was a very efficient weapons system, and contrary to m60's still somewhat useable
roknikov 1 month ago
You are correct; the T-72 was designed to be a relatively inexpensive tank to be deployed in large numbers to defeat the West through quantitative rather than qualitative superiority.
However, times have changed and the T-72 (and its derivatives) now finds itself without the advantage of numbers or with qualitative parity.
As for the M-60A3, the average T-72 has the advantage in armor and mobility but has an inferior FCS and survivability. The Israeli’s still use the M-60 with ERA.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 btw you really ought to check out the subtitled interview with the Russian vet that fought in Chechnya wit some t-80 that got immobilised after multiple rpg"27" strikes and managed to whipe out the attacking rpg team.
the best thing is they actually filmed the guy sitting on the tank, showing the battle damage it got.
Indeed mw with t72's is limited to convoy escort and reaction force in big numbers.
The t90s or latest m84 are ok if your facing older stuff mostly
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
The T-84 and the T-90 will probably be the ultimate examples of the design lineage started by the T-54.
They all share the same basic layout with the stress on mobility, low silhouette, and a powerful mid-range gun.
However, they all share the same draw back of having limited gun traverse, ammo stored in the crew compartment, and an FCS below Western standards.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 I'm not that certain the latest versions of the 125mm cannons are that bad FCS equipped; the ATGM capability (4000+ metres) 'd need sophisticated equipment anyway i think.(+ that sort of ranges are luxury too IMO)
As this systems are mainly late/post soviet designed it'll most likely be pretty useable, and it's current useability 'd be like say a (t84/t90/m84ab1)=like m4 vs panther(m1/leo) in normandy if used by pro's where possible.The Ts NV gear is also less capable then NATOs
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
The tube launced missile used by the Russians is not an ATGW. Its to light to be effective against heavy armor. I don't even think it would punch the front of a Russian tank.
We always thought the missile for ATGM platforms like APC's and Helo's.
Given the problems with crew safety and survivability, the T-84 and T-90 would not be my first choice in tank v. tank combat.
Broken tanks I can recover and repair, you can't do that with a dead crew.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 quite true, but in numbers on an outranged (and then somewhat damaged) enemy is a nice perk.
Personally i think the Russians ought to equip their next tank with a 25/30mm cannon, instead of the 7,62 and 12,7MGs too.
And 25% less crew could mean 25% more tanks on your team, and if they're equippeded with improved Drozhd or Arena like systems they are far from being death-traps.
T72 and T72A are deathtraps T72B with era is almost good, which is nice for infantry support and such.
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
Problem is, with HEAT rounds you aren't going to seriously damage an MBT these days. You are going to alert the crew you are within gun range and attract their attention. Not sure I'd want to do that with 1/40 of my ammo load.
As for a 25mm cannon. Not a lot of spare space in a tank turret for the gun's breach and ammo storage. If you put the gun on the turret roof you make the tank several feet taller and just that much harder to hide.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 that's true, but is saw a Slovak(?) AA T72 with dual 30mm, which is somewhat close
but the barrel of the cannon should be a bit above the optics, like the israeli's used for their m60 co-ax training .50MG set up, but more to the rear of the vehicle.
Two MGs and their ammo are also weak spots, and take up space yet suck at 600+metres, and i wouldn't like to shoot at two attack helo's with HEAT and 12,7mm ;)
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
What could you want to shoot at 600mm that can be killed by a 30mm but not a 125? And where on a Russian tank can you store 30mm ammo?
You shoot HEAT at a Helo because its a low cost option. Frag would require special fusing you don't want to carry around in a tank, APDS requires better FCS and tubes then the Russians want to buy, and the Russians don't used HESH.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 Well Arena like systems, would give added height anyway, and the hydraulic sensor platform would be up in hot-zones anyway right?
Assuming you have multiple (.50 proof armoured) Helo's attacking simultaneously, shooting HEAT at them is FUBAR.
Also it'd be good for changing your HE for a AP when suddenly confronted with enemy armour.
But that sort of thing would need a new unmanned turret without the MG weak spots next to the main weapon.
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
Buy adding additional turrets you are adding weight, complexity, cost, maintanece and crew training issues.
Given that Russian tanks are hitting their max weight, and Western tanks their max costs, I don't think you are going to see multiple turret vehicles any time soon.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 not an additional turret, they should use their new prototype hulls(where all crewmembers are located) and use a new unmanned turret without MGs weakening the front of the turret, and opt for using a fast cannon for infantry/air targets.
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
That would involve designing a whole new vehicle from the ground up. The Russians have been unwilling to do that.
A tank designed along the lines your are discussing would result in a fewer tankers per tank company, but it you would require more tank mechanics and support troops because there is no way a two man crew is going to keep a tank running.
The US did a design study of a two man M-1 variant with a remote turret, We dropped the idea.
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 I don't think any tank should have less then 3 crew, as this 'll negatively influence situational awareness (having 3 is allready less effective then 4).
As for designing a whole new vehicle, the Russian are planning to do that; they themselves call the T90 a in between model.
Opting for a single co-ax type autocannon 'll simplify maintenance and and add limited AA capability
Also a small cannon's curved trajectory makes you able to engage armour hiding behind hilly terrain
roknikov 1 month ago
@roknikov
I don't know about adding an AA capability. The elevation of the main gun in a Russian tank is nothing I'd brag about.
I think there would be a VERY large cone shaped area over a Russian tank which a cannon coax would not be able to cover.
As for engaging targets behind a hill, if you can't see it how are you going to hit it? Why not just call in arty rather than give your position away with blind fire?
Call me old fashioned I guess...
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 ha ha
bla bla bla
Roofius2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 "Given Russian loses in Grozny;" - Totally irrelevant. Given utilized tactics, existing threats and statistics of battle in Grozny AA MG on top is one of the first casualties of one MBT. It doesn't live long in urban environment regardless if it is manned or not.
"I know the US has given up on the idea."
Yeah... right. Somehow US and German upgrades for urban warfare do exactly this - they place remotely operated MGs. M1A2 TUSK, M1A2 SEP, Leo 2 PSO, Leo 2A7+.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
eto T-90MS /watch?v=Plj8RIH6FzI&feature=related
nowij russkej tank nu iwo ni t-95 sawut :) pasmatriti video
TheDima999 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheDima999 5 months ago
T-95 is another pathetic russian fail project.
Russians never produced a single quality tank .
ViciousCritique 5 months ago
@ViciousCritique no ;) fail T-90MS new tank ! and best tank look video /watch?v=Plj8RIH6FzI&feature=related
TheDima999 5 months ago
@TheDima999 I see only another pathetic russian "modern" tank .
I am pretty sure US tankers with their steel beasts cannot wait to use that russian junk as target practice :)
ViciousCritique 5 months ago
@ViciousCritique Nope, never gonna happen. Keep on playing with downgraded ,T-55's,Chinese copies of them, and T-72M's in Iraq,they are obviously not even made in Russia (Made in Ukraine and Czech),and T-55 is VERY OLD(obviously target practice). Also, the real T-72B is 1000x more capable than what you fight in Middle East.
999cheetos999 5 months ago
@999cheetos999 Granted that the T-55 is still quite old, it is still used in some roles with Russia. Along with the T-62, one of which (in Russian use) was destroyed in the battle of Tskhinvali. They are tanks that are widely used & even though the US went up against inferior tanks; it should still be considered. Not to stand up for an idiot like ViciousCritique, but I was just pointing something out.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The T-55 is used for training crews, and random things like being in a Snickers commercial or in the dump crushing cars...T-62's however are still in use,but mostly small operations where even the T-90 is too overpowered to be used (small counter terror ops)..they are formidable against infantry. Most T-62's are in storage too,only 100 remain active in Russia
999cheetos999 3 months ago
@999cheetos999 No I know, I was merely pointing out how the T-62 & the T-55 is still a tank that is very widely used & still has their place occasionally on the battlefield. So if they are encountered in a battlefield, I think the results are still noteworthy, especially since a T-72M is usually better than most T-62's out there.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Last week I got pictures and description of most of destroyed equipment in S. Ossetia. There was that T-62 too. It was destroyed at August 8 in Tskhinvali and it belong to S. Ossetian National Guards. Meaning that it was destroyed before Russian 58th Army passed Caucasus and it wasn't operated by Russian Army.
Despite that 58th Army also had T-62s in its arsenal and some of them were caught on camera on check-points.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@ViciousCritique amerikaner tanks bullshit,t-90 beat all
TheDima999 5 months ago
@TheDima999 for Americans it's always like what comes out of neus russians, they howl around :)
TheDima999 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ViciousCritique Nope. It's just you are another pathetic russophobe. :)
BitnikGr 3 months ago
lol canceled
ELEMENTSFAN666 5 months ago
Continuation of the Kharkov Object 477 and no more
DEMASkinas 5 months ago
Aww, all the Abrams haters are coming out of their holes, how sad, most of them don't even live in Russia, To bad to see that this tank was cancelled because Russia couldn't afford just like the T-50, Russia is going to be history when china conquers it.
SpiderDroid2 5 months ago
@SpiderDroid2 So you "should" be Russian to be an Abrams hater? No we just know more about tanks better than you, you should study them both to know why we say these things instead of relying on CNN/American propaganda. The cancelled project "Black Eagle" was supposed to be T-90 today, but the real T-90 won and was a better tank overall. This tank however is not canceled and will be finished in a few years. Also, I heard that your whole fleet of F-22 and F-35's are grounded?
999cheetos999 5 months ago
@999cheetos999 T-90MS ist new russian tank /watch?v=Plj8RIH6FzI&feature=related
TheDima999 5 months ago
americans are always ahead have you people not learned any thing they prove this fact every time this tank is headed in the m1a1 way just look at it
getonmyleveification 6 months ago
@getonmyleveification "this tank is headed in the m1a1 way just look at it"
???!!! In which way?!
BitnikGr 3 months ago
Fact is, the russians are ahead with its t 95
Julik1 7 months ago
Why the hell does every single video about Russian / American military hardware have to degenerate into a nationalist pissing match??
antred11 7 months ago
watch?v=7DkDnExl7-k&NR=1 :)
DigitalDNA 8 months ago
What song is that playing?
newgeneral01 9 months ago
Is it me or is that a t90 chassie with a 155mm howitzer on top?!
snipermakedonski 9 months ago
@vvsector1 M1A3 will have new lightweight armor packages, new electronics like boomerang anti sniper system, rpg quick kill, and many other things. They plan on dropping the weight of the tank down to 58 to 60 tons. Here in the USA we build war machines, not Russia, dont take our line. Thats why thousands or Russian tanks and vehicles have been destroyed, take a look in Iraq, thats where they belong, destroyed in the sand. Tank with a 152mm gun, just use a fucken howitzer.
tonygogap 10 months ago
@tonygogap BTW, another thing no T-90A VLADIMIR were lost in the battle of Dagestan against the second Chechen war. The Chechen terrorists got massive casualties facing these quick-silvers. Only two T-90 were battle damage : 1 got hit by 7 shots of RPG-7 and sustain no damage thanks to the ERA armor, the second got shot by 4 RPG-29 it was heavily damage, but was able to fight back and return to base for repair. Only 12 T-90A were used in this blood-shedding war. HE-FRAG and Thermobar shells fuck
Nickael7 10 months ago 3
@tonygogap Yeah you only face downgraded T-72 tanks Iraqi built Assad Babil. Easy to talk shit. Now your facing handheld RPGs and IEDs that are fucking up your Abrams. XD
SuperRatchetclank 10 months ago 31
@SuperRatchetclank If we took T-90's into Iraq, we would lose hundreds. Ive seen Abrams tanks take very large IED's and the crew come out with only minor injuries. If a T-90 hit an IED it would be burnt to a crisp and you know that. The T-90 has no armor on the sides and back of the turret, it would be taken out by rpg-7's! No need to talk about the t-72 and t-80, both are the same as t-90. Russian tanks have always been junk because they are cheap and easy to produce.
tonygogap 10 months ago
@tonygogap T-90 has armor everywhere so they dont blow up by getting hit randomly in a URBAN COMBAT field. Your Abrams, a hit by an RPG in the sides and back is instant damage or killed. What is the next solution for that heavy piece of scrap: is to further destroy it 15 millions of dollars put to the drain for one Abrams, but what happens to the other hundreds been damage and destroyed. 1500 millions dollars burned in the air. Repair another 8 millions dollars for each ''if they can repair it''
Nickael7 10 months ago
@tonygogap Many Russian tanks destroyed? Looks at Gerogia, NATO supported Georgia with western tanks, even M1 was on field, T90 ripped them apart. Why NATO countries choose M1? Because it is cheaper to get that, because they are part of NATO, many ex-enemies of Russia, like Afghanistan and other countries buy Russia's tech, because it has better quality.
By the way, M1A2 was getting destroyed by old T72 in Iraq.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 You are a massive fucking idiot. Georgia never used american tanks ever thats a straight out fucken lie. The M1 is not cheaper than the T-90 idiot. Also no T-72 destroyed an Abrams tank in battle ever, no M1 Abrams tank has been destroyed by another tank in history, only by Large IED's so shut the fuck up retard.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Its not about the height, its the weight and size to keep the stabilization of the main 152mm gun. Such gun of this magnitude with its massive turret ring can fuck literrally an Abram from many Km. This tank is estimated to weight more than the Abrams. Ammunition compartment must be large to carry these SABOT KE rods and as well larger ATGMs. The tracks of T-95 looks quite large enough to run on muddy grounds. BTW, T-90AM will have as well a 140mm gun version of its own.
Nickael7 9 months ago
@Nickael7 Well i am not going to underestimate this tank because we know no very little about it so I will wait until they reveal it. I looked up the T-90am and it said it has a 125mm cannon, i saw some pics too, I think your mistaken.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Read every file you will see that there is going to be probably 2 versions of it. T-95 is a classified heavy tank it is going to come like around in ~2015~2017 or so. BTW, this T-95 as you look it, it is incomplete, the turret is missing its cupola to protect the integrity of the mechanism and electronics.
Nickael7 9 months ago
@tonygogap Starting to rage already? Seriously? Boohoo, stop whining and deal with it.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 No you are just a dumbass who is making up a bunch of bullshit that never happened.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Oh really? Gonna cry more? Come on, swear more, show your intelligence, pathetic looser.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 Ha ha you make me sick.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Where is your "dumbass, fucking, idiot?" Cant say anything anymore? That is what i tought.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 I already proved you are a retard so why do you bother responding back to me? You're just trying to make yourself feel better because you know I made you look like a complete idiot so you take my vulgar words and try and turn shit around. You made up a stupid lie and I proved you wrong, thats all there is to it.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap You proved me as retard? How? By calling me names? Me saying vulgar words? Dude do you understand that you are pathetic, look at your comments :D You are acting liek a clown.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 I already explained to you that no T-90's ever destroyed m1 Abrams tanks in the ossetia war in 2008 nor did they get destroyed by t-72's in Iraq. Your a freaken lying pain in my ass so dont respond to me again.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Crying bitch already? You doint watch your own media? FUcking Americans, talk too much, when it comes to deal with problems, then just make shit.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 You are absolutely retarded and I am not going to say anymore because I really dont feel sorry for you at all.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap You are fucking dumbass seriously, cant even prove that M1 is better, then starts to insult, fucking clown.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 Your giving me a headache, please go away before you contaminate the rest of the world.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap You are fucking looser, seriously. Jesus Christ, If you wouldnt start this you little piece of crap you owuldnt be crying.
Gioconda092 9 months ago
@Gioconda092 Get a fucking life bum, I didn't start shit, you're the piece of shit who started talking to me. Obviously you are trying to make a fool out of me because I made a fool out of you because you said something stupid about american tanks in Georgia destroyed by T-90's and destroyed m1 Abrams by Iraqi t-72's which both never happened. I dont know what more you want me to say, obviously you just like to argue with people on the internet. Goodbye dickface.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@tonygogap Go cry fucking crybaby. Obviously you cant prove shit.
Gioconda092 8 months ago
@vvsector1 M1A3 is under development, 2014 prototypes will be revealed and then fielded by 2017. T-95 looks like a bulky T-72 and a regurgitated T-90. This thing is going to be a pile of shit just like every other Russian tank out there.
tonygogap 10 months ago
@tonygogap This comment deserves a title of "The TOP ignorant comments about MBT in year 2011"! Congratulations!
Saying that T-95 looks like anything else is like saying that all cars look alike!
Congratulations again buddy! You won! Noone can compete you in your lack of knowledge! Well Done!!!
BitnikGr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr I said that? Your a dumbass man.
tonygogap 3 months ago
it looks like a howitzer
tonygogap 11 months ago
@tonygogap It uses a 152mm Smoothbore Tank Weapon Designation: 2A83.
DEFCONStudios 11 months ago
@DEFCONStudios an more pictures of this thing, all the pics look blurry on purpose or info
tonygogap 11 months ago
@tonygogap Although the Obekt/Object 195 (T-95) was cancelled in Q2 2010 the Project still remains a Government secret. Uralvagonzavod has stated that they would finalize and continue development on the Obekt/Object 195 (T-95) albeit without government funding post Q2 Cancellation.
DEFCONStudios 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DEFCONStudios The M1A3 Abrams will beat the shit out of this thing, I read Russia wont buy it or let them export it, so whats the point of even making this thing.
tonygogap 11 months ago
@tonygogap There is an obvious shift in the Russian Federation in their Doctrine from employing mass numbers IE quantity to quality as is evident today with their massive modernization programmes and their military reforms. The T-95 (Object 195) Tank Programme was undertaken in the mid-1990's using Data gathered from experimental combat platforms in the 1980's as a replacement for the Russian Third Generation main battle tanks currently in service.
DEFCONStudios 11 months ago
@tonygogap The M1A3 is a joke compare to the size and power of the T-95. This Behemoth stands 3.7 meters tall and overshadows your blocky Abrams. You're really one ignorant guy. The 152mm gun bustle turret has a massive turret ring to shoot massive SABOTS with very large propellant charge. Kinetic energy of such gun is enough to rip apart your Abrams and still the projectile will pass through the other side to damage anything in its way. T-95 is built for quality not quantity.
Nickael7 10 months ago 37
@Nickael7 All you have to do is put a damn radar inside a M109 Paladin tank, give it a guided round and basically it can hit any target from 20 miles away. Thats what the Russians are trying to do with this tank is give it the capability to shoot from far away. If we could put a 140mm cannon on an m1, we can put a 155mm on one too. You go from low tanks to high tanks because you know height doesn't mean shit, just like tall western tanks, which many Russian criticized.
tonygogap 9 months ago
@Nickael7 russia builds junk equipment because their customers can only afford cheap stuff... although it is getting marginally better... i like thier helicopters
gxbmb 6 months ago
@gxbmb I wouldn't say that, their vehicles are getting much better, firepower and mobility at is best. T-90S export cost only 2.5 millions $, but a T-90A cost 4.4 millions $, depends the model you want. Russia has shift their military doctrine (since Putin administration) of mass-cheap production to better quality low production.
Nickael7 6 months ago
@gxbmb Beside, this is not the 20e century, this is the 21e century, the tides of technology and econometrics has change since a while.
Nickael7 6 months ago
@tonygogap The M1a2 is already one of the shittiest modern tanks, don't think it will get any better with a new upgrade, which will most likely put a new engine and some more armor. The T90 beats M1a2 hands down. This thing with a 152mm gun would just rape it.
Aaidas2 10 months ago
@Aaidas2 your stupid and you are a waste of my time so i will say this once only. The T-90 is such a piece of shit it can be penetrated in the frontal arch by a rpg-29, there, thats my evidence. Please dont waste any more of my time cause you will have nothing to say but stating your opinion.
tonygogap 10 months ago
@tonygogap Lol, then why it survived 7 direct frontal Rpg 29 hits in daegestan in the 1990's? And was prooved that it's pretty much immune to rpg7's? That was like 11 years ago, the armor on it only advanced... Move on mate, keep listening to us propaganda...
Aaidas2 10 months ago
@Aaidas2 First of all dumbass, the Moscow defense brief never said what type of rpg's they were, second they couldn't have been rpg-29's because the Russian's have already released that rpg-29's have penetrated both the T-80 and T-90 with kontakt- 5 in military test's. Kontakt 5 is worthless to newer and improved M829A1 sabot rounds, such as (M829A2,A3, and soon E4), these three. All the T-90 is a T-72 with composite and reactive armor, nothing technologically advanced, get it through your head.
tonygogap 10 months ago
@tonygogap You're fucking ignorant those T-90A were equipped with state of the art 4e generation ERA Relikt-1 and Kaktus, plus they have a better armor protection of ceramics, cermets -Wofradium carbide-, non-explosive reactive plastics, 4e grade kevlar liners with anti-penetrating gels, inconel and hard steel. Which is why this tank weight only 47 tons vs. 68 tons Abrams with old cheap toxic DU. The 4e gen. ERA is design to counter the M829A2A3, while the 5e Kaktus is made against the A4 round.
SuperRatchetclank 10 months ago