13 replies to this topic

[Zla_Khata]

The mythical Russian T-95 has been terrorizing military experts' minds since 1994, when the then Russian defense minister said that "Russia has acquired the new T-95 tank". Hell! I have been a kid when Russian defense ministry began spreading gossips about that thing.
And the actual story of T-95 have begun even that earlier - app. in the beginning of the 80's when the main Soviet tank-designing bureaus received an order for designing a future tank that will replace T-80.

For a long while (1994-2010) we haven't heard a bit of concrete info about the tank except same dull gossips. I'll remind the gossips: enormous size, big (152-mm) gun, ability to fire nuclear shells and an unmanned turret. The concept, that was popular before the T-95 was declassified:


Have you noticed I said "before"? Yep, that's true, T-95 now IS declassified, grab your pop-corn!




At last you can add it in your mods

Source: no, not the Russian defense ministry.

Edited by Zla_Khata, 18 December 2010 - 20:29.

[Sgt. Rho]

I always thought the T-95 was the Black Eagle

[Destiny]

Hmm this seems to be...more different.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

I thought the T-95 was cancelled? Not that it will make much different now for the Russians, I would thought upgrading their exsiting stockpile of T-90 to a better standard would be better than pushing out a "new" design, which is outdated as it is completed.

[Zla_Khata]

Sgt. Rho, on 18 Dec 2010, 17:16, said:

I always thought the T-95 was the Black Eagle

Oh, no-no. Black Eagle was a competitive design by Omsk design bureau. Though, in my opinion more potent.
BTW, all the major gossips about T-95 were truth.

[NergiZed]

Only two pics?

This 'unveiling' is kinda meh, I mean, you only see like 20% of it, of which is neither distinct nor particularly spectacular.

Seriously, I don't even think I can say that it isn't just a stock T-90, or perhaps some slightly modified T-90 under there.

I think I'll wait for the official unveiling by the Russian Federation armed forces like they did with the PAK-FA/T-50; at least there was nice pics and quite a few vids of that thing when it was unveiled.

[Zla_Khata]

NergiZed, on 19 Dec 2010, 10:25, said:

Only two pics?

This 'unveiling' is kinda meh, I mean, you only see like 20% of it, of which is neither distinct nor particularly spectacular.

There were no pics at all for 16 years. For people who waited to see it it's more than cool.

Quote

Seriously, I don't even think I can say that it isn't just a stock T-90, or perhaps some slightly modified T-90 under there.

Hwwat? A 3-metre high, 7-wheeled, 152-mm gunned, with a boxy body and Falcon-like turret "slightly modified" T-90?
Have you seen the T-90 before? It is a T-90 the same way as hot-dog is a dog.

Quote

I think I'll wait for the official unveiling by the Russian Federation armed forces like they did with the PAK-FA/T-50; at least there was nice pics and quite a few vids of that thing when it was unveiled.

Nobody knows how long it may have to wait for this "official" unveiling The problem is that the Russians both don't need this tank and aren't able to mass-produce it.
It's a nuclear war tank - the 152-mm barrel says it.

[Henford]

I still much prefer the T-108

[Zla_Khata]

And as for me I prefer the Ultralisk

Edited by Zla_Khata, 25 December 2010 - 03:27.

[Pardus]

Most people who was interested in this already seen this, but...

[Sgt. Nuker]

That picture makes the tank look incredibly tall and the hull looks............very non-stereotypical Russian (which, in this case I deem a bad thing).

[Soul]

I agree, the design looks very non-stereotypical Russian to me

[NergiZed]

I don't mind it not having a stereotypical Russian design. What I do mind is it's high profile. That's not a good thing in tank combat, especially if you plan on your tank operating in a radioactive glassed plain of flattened by nuclear destruction.

Don't really see why they're investing in tanks in this day and age anyhow. Why would you deliver nukes with a tank, when it can be done far more effectively with a missile?

Main problem I see is that if it's been in development since the 90s, wouldn't the entire design be outdated by now? By the time it gets fielded, it's going to be a quarter century old design.

Edited by NergiZed, 16 April 2011 - 05:52.

[Pardus]

Quote

What I do mind is it's high profile. That's not a good thing in tank combat, especially if you plan on your tank operating in a radioactive glassed plain of flattened by nuclear destruction.

It is not higher than Abrams actually (of course, 152 mm cannon is taking more place, but turret is unmanned). And then high profile have some advantages - higher line of sight and fire and cannon angles (this is important because according to some sources the direct fire range of this gun is more than 12 km).
And every tank since 50s have NBC protection, Object 195 isn't an exception.

Quote

Don't really see why they're investing in tanks in this day and age anyhow. Why would you deliver nukes with a tank, when it can be done far more effectively with a missile?

High intensity conflicts are non-priority. Survivability of this tank in anti-insurgent operation anyway will be higher than 3rd generation tanks.

Quote

Main problem I see is that if it's been in development since the 90s, wouldn't the entire design be outdated by now? By the time it gets fielded, it's going to be a quarter century old design.

The first prototype (on all available pictures) was built in 1999. In total, where was 3 to 6 prototypes built in 2000s which are have many differences. It is no way to say that it is outdated cause of all other countries using just upgraded 70s-80s designs (Leopard-2, Abrams etc). Only Japan and S.Korea developed really new tanks (Type-10 and K2) but they are still 3rd generation.