New Details on Russia’s T-95 Tank Emerge

[dysta 10]

I thought this was canceled.

The canceled one is T-80 140mm version called "Black Eagle". T-95 is an entirely different tank from the previous project.

[spooky lynx 73]

Subject of the thread is "object 195", one of the so-called "Future MBT" variations. Now there's another one in development. Together with T-90M.

[dysta 10]

Oh and by the way: NEVER believe official russian numbers!

Just like meter and feet. Same number for length, different format to calculate.

[dm 9]

Yes, true. Always distracted by those people...

Personally I'm not a fan - it may boast "unprecidented situational awareness" but having a 3 man-crew, low down in the hull is not good for SA.

A single gunner-commander cant be as effective as a 2 man team, one designating targets the other engaging them (see hunter-killer). Even if you fit the tank with some sort of target aquisition radar (similar to longbow on the Apache) its not going to be as effective, as its down-low in amongst the clutter...

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Until you need to actually control that terrain. Then you need boots on the ground. And that'll never change.

I don't know if you ever been in the army or any military, but getting boots on the ground isn't the problem. The problem is moving extremely heavy M1 tanks is not only expensive but time consuming: 30 or more days to move a single battalion via cargo ship. Like most intelligence analyst admit, there aren't any conventional forces that even require a gas guzzler M1 Abrams to be in theater.

The tank at the end of history

Everybody loves the M1 Abrams family of tanks. They’re powerful, fast, tough, battle-proven and endlessly upgradable — Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli says the Abrams’ history of improvements provides an ideal blueprint for what he wants out of the new Ground Combat Vehicle. The only problem is, the Abrams might not need to exist anymore. It’s getting harder to imagine a scenario in which the Army would fight a big set piece tank battle, and although no one is seriously contemplating giving up heavy armor, the Army does want to bring its tank production to a halt. For awhile.

Source:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/21/the-tank-at-the-end-of-history/

[dm 9]

I don't know if you ever been in the army or any military, but getting boots on the ground isn't the problem. The problem is moving extremely heavy M1 tanks is not only expensive but time consuming: 30 or more days to move a single battalion via cargo ship. Like most intelligence analyst admit, there aren't any conventional forces that even require a gas guzzler M1 Abrams to be in theater.

Yup, well aware of the logistical problems of moving tanks around. And its not just the tanks themselves, but all the spares, recovery equipment, tools and other bits ad bobs required to keep them going.

My "boots on the ground" comment was more in response to the "aircraft > everything" post.

While Aircraft are indeed awesome, once you've "sanitized" that terrain with them, you need boots on the ground in order to hold it, otherwise it'll just slip back into enemy hands.

And yes, while I agree that the likelyhood of a "classic" tank on tank battle gets smaller by the day. Tanks certainly still have a role on the modern battlefield.

You just have to look at how popular the Dutch and Canadian Leo's are in Afghanistan to see that they still serve a purpose.

[Rovka 14]

You just have to look at how popular the Dutch and Canadian Leo's are in Afghanistan..

Ofcourse tanks cán make a difference on the battlefield. But terrain has to be favorable for these machines to properly operate in. And Uruzgan province was way too rugged and mountaineous, so the Dutch high command decided to not send along the tanks. Those tanks would've merely been high-priority sitting ducks, waiting to be shot at from the high ridges and peaks..

However indeed them Danes and Canadians do/did have tanks on the ground, and since quite recently the Americans also have a few shipped into A'stan for some sort of QRF backup task in the wide open area's where the US military operates.

But it is sure to say that the Dutch forces themselves never had any Leo-2a6 roll onto the Afghan soil.

As for the T-95.. I think we don't need to fear this beastie. The only military I'm concerned about is China's.. You all know China got your government by the balls, as the USA keeps on making debt, and China willfully gives a loan, knowing they get huge interest = income out of doing so.

That's why China is the most dangerous one on the block these days. Every five years or so, a new Chinese tank model comes out, closely following latest 'western' tank-trends, but also monitoring Russian achievements regarding armor-techniques.. We're dealing with masterclass Chinese copy-cats here.

To come back to the T-95, produced or not, I think those tanks are predominantly meant to brush away a Chinese would-be invasion into sparsely populated Russian territories like Siberia. As China gets more densely populated, and slowly but surely even China's resources are dwindling, China along with her it's huge population is eventually going to look elsewhere for resources and vital living space... And large parts of Russia's territory are still untouched, and full of hard needed resources, and there had been short lived clashes between China and Russia over border-disputes in the distant post-WWII past before..

Edited June 24, 2011 by Thani '82

[Baff1 0]

And who thinks that there were only so few Helicopters produced is the real joker ^^

When they say that they have 8 operational, you can bet that they have the same number stashed somewhere and that they continue to produce.

As I understand it, Russia ordered 1,000 Mi-28 helicopters this year. (Delivery, 100 per year?)

They are still buying limited numbers of KA 52's, and Mi 35's, but they have gone with the Mi 28 as their primary attack copter.

The Russian Helicopter Company delivered 214 helicopters on 2010, and 183 in 2009. A lot of these I think were for the export market, but their biggest customer is the Russian military.

Thanks for the post on the tank. It looks a lot like all the preamble about Black Eagle or whatever was pretty much spot on the money. A crewless turret and a big gun.

I think the Iraq war pretty much shows us that there is still plenty of use for tanks. As does Georgia. It also showed us that air power alone wasn't enough.

If you can't defeat your enemy by airpower alone in the clear skies of the desert, then you have no chance in Kosovo or somewhere with cloud cover, forests or jungle. Let alone somewhere with contested airspace.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Baff1

[dysta 10]

If you can't defeat your enemy by airpower alone in the clear skies of the desert, then you have no chance in Kosovo or somewhere with cloud cover, forests or jungle. Let alone somewhere with contested airspace.

There is a cliche:

"Aerial warfare WON'T conquer the land."

[dm 9]

However indeed them Danes and Canadians do/did have tanks on the ground...

But it is sure to say that the Dutch forces themselves never had any Leo-2a6 roll onto the Afghan soil.

Was it Denmark? I always get confused between those two :o

Have to agree about the China thing, dispite the long standing "feud" between "East" and "West" there is certainly now a bigger "problem" for all concerned.

[rangerpl 13]

If you can't defeat your enemy by airpower alone in the clear skies of the desert, then you have no chance in Kosovo or somewhere with cloud cover, forests or jungle.

But that's exactly what Operation Instant Thunder accomplished during the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's army was pissed on by the Air Force and when the ground war commenced, his forces were too demoralized and exhausted to put up much resistance.

The Iraqi Army fell like a house of cards.

[max power 21]

Yes, but they needed ground forces in there to push them out.

[rangerpl 13]

Yes, but they needed ground forces in there to push them out.

But Saddam didn't put up much resistance and the ground troops marched without much effort. There's a difference between capturing ground and having to fight for the same ground.

Yes, I'm aware that there were pitched battles on the ground, such as the Battle of Khafji or the tank engagement at 73d Easting, but they were not decisive. Iraq's fate was sealed during Instant Thunder.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

But Saddam didn't put up much resistance and the ground troops marched without much effort. There's a difference between capturing ground and having to fight for the same ground.

Battle of 73 Easting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

[max power 21]

But Saddam didn't put up much resistance and the ground troops marched without much effort. There's a difference between capturing ground and having to fight for the same ground.

Yes, I'm aware that there were pitched battles on the ground, such as the Battle of Khafji or the tank engagement at 73d Easting, but they were not decisive. Iraq's fate was sealed during Instant Thunder.

They are saying you can't capture ground with air power. How exactly do you occupy territory with aircraft? That's the difference they are talking about. It doesn't matter if the army is fatigued and demoralized if they are the only ones there. It's like you're saying artillery can capture towns or something. It's just not true.

[dysta 10]

They are saying you can't capture ground with air power. How exactly do you occupy territory with aircraft? That's the difference they are talking about. It doesn't matter if the army is fatigued and demoralized if they are the only ones there. It's like you're saying artillery can capture towns or something. It's just not true.

This.

Again, "Aerial Warfare WON'T conquer a land." There's no absolute domination for only single weapon or machine. Not even the nuclear warfare did.

[Tonci87 163]

True, Aerial Warfare can prepare a land for beeing conquered by ground troops, but it can´t conquer a country on its own

[Baff1 0]

It did in Japan.

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

But that's exactly what Operation Instant Thunder accomplished during the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's army was pissed on by the Air Force and when the ground war commenced, his forces were too demoralized and exhausted to put up much resistance.

The Iraqi Army fell like a house of cards.

No. The Iraqi army was heavily damaged during it's retreat.

The bulk of his army survived and was not destroyed until a decade later.

Using a combination of airpower and tank rushing the Coalition attempted to cut off and destroy the Iraqi army before it managed to escape. It only partially succeeded in this aim.

During the second Gulf War he had a bloody great tank army that would have eviscerated light infantry in the open terrain of the desert.

The air war is estimated to have reduced that army by 1/3.

If they hadn't of needed to send in the tanks, they wouln't have.

Further to this tanks were used in the occupation of Iraq, not just the invasion.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Baff1

[max power 21]

It did in Japan.

Well, after their surrender you need to send troops there.

[Baff1 0]

Well, after their surrender you need to send troops there.

In Japan?

Mainland Japan is unoccupied.

The troops fought their way onto Okinawa before the bombs were dropped. The part that surrendered, has never required any troops to be sent.

After you start nuking cities, people do what they are told.

[Rak 0]

Sounds awesome if this is true. Finally a "Westernized take on tanks" from Russia.

[max power 21]

In Japan?

Mainland Japan is unoccupied.

The troops fought their way onto Okinawa before the bombs were dropped. The part that surrendered, has never required any troops to be sent.

After you start nuking cities, people do what they are told.

350,000 personnel would disagree with you.

[Baff1 0]

I stand corrected.

Many thanks.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Baff1

[hellfire257 3]

That auxiliary 30mm is a great idea IMO.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

That auxiliary 30mm is a great idea IMO.

I'd like to see the sight of that, but might be a necessity for engagements over such long distances that the steppes provide, which are going to be the normal in the coming China-Russia war.