Most dominating tank in the world

[Serb]

Originally posted by steelehc
I don't mean just tanks, I meant all heavy weapons in general. Very few of them have autoloaders. They are very hard to make reliably.

The general meaning of technical progress is to replace human by machine everywhere it's possible. In article about Future Combat System said that your future tanks will have autoloaders. Btw, in this article said also that the goals of this program is to create more light tank, to reduce crew of tank, to reduce on 50% crew workload to lower the silhouette of the tank, to add the integral reactive armor. And all this and other features must be done within 2012-2025 timeframe and beyond, but T-80U already have those features now.

I have a hard time believeing it fired while in mid-air as you say, however, if that is true, then the T-80U is more agile.

I can assure you this is true. I saw it with my own eyes, many time. As I've said it's the unique feature of T-80U demonstrated on every military exhibition- the tank at full speed jumping through small hill and make shoot while it is above the ground.

The only figure I can find for the T-80U is 1000hp.

Multi-fuel 1250 hp GTD-1250 gas-turbine engine provides excellent power-to-weight ratio, high acceleration/speed and agility characteristics. Planetary power transmission, torsion bar suspension system and telescopic shock absorbers ensure smooth ride, lowered vibration loads and more comfortable operation conditions for the crew. For rapid deployment it can be transported by trailers, flat cars, ships, cargo aircraft.

http://armor.vif2.ru/

http://logos.cyber.mephi.ru/~maxwolf/armor/t80u.html

It have 1250 Hp engine, but in last configurations it has even more powerful engine.

The silhouette of the T-80U is smaller; shorter by 3cm, narrower by 1cm, and lower by 8.5cm. That is all the difference, and the silhouette is that much smaller. Not very much.

Tanks of T-series always had smaller turret then M-series. It was one of the major factors for our designers to create tank with small silhouette.

Thanks. Now what does that mean?

I don't know. I guess I was wrong about the meaning of 'U'. I don't know why our designers just added letter 'U' instead of given absolutely different name.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Wraith
That reactive armour you're so proud of Serb? Reactive armour is an applique thing (you have to replace it, after all). It can be added to the Abrams if we want.

Sure you want, but we don't sell the know-how to you.

In any case, the whole "Which xxxxx is best" comments are becoming irrelevant. The days when one single class of combatant could dominate are long gone.

Agreed.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I hate to break this to you serb, but Russian tanks aren't well maintained and never were. The majority of tanks they have are T-55s and T-72s. It is an undeniable fact that American weaponry is better. Infact, the M1A2 can fire while moving at targets efficiently, while Russian tanks cannot.

Systems of fire stabilization were invented and used on Russian tanks more then 30 years ago.

At least I know about efficient machines and not hunks of crap.

Russian tanks always were easy to repair in field conditions. Two tanks in field can even exchange own engines with each other without any external help using only own turrets for elevation of engines.
And my buddy the tanker just said- 'If guys like him will not shut up, then we'll be forced to demonstrate the performance of our tanks in action'.

[Saint Marcus]

Infact, the M1A2 can fire while moving at targets efficiently, while Russian tanks cannot.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alephz

Can you post some good link about t-95 please?

There is no much information about this, most of data is classified. T-95 is a prototype, a concept-tank. It was not shown to public like 'Black Eagle'.
Few info about it could be found there:

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html

Btw, if you compare the pictures of T-95 with pictures of American 'Future Combat System' you'll see that those pictures very common. Americans want to create such tank in future, while we already have working prototype. So when you finally create tank of such design don't tell the Russians stole the design of their tank from Americans.

[Saint Marcus]

T-80 versions:

T-80: The first production model of the T-80 entered production in 1978 with only a few hundred built before production switched to the T-80B.

T-80B: Sometimes referred to Beryoza (Birch Tree), this first major redesign features a modified turret with new composite K ceramic armor providing better protection against APFSDS kinetic energy penetrators.

T-80BK: Command version with additional communications equipment and antennae.

T-80BV: Variant has first generation explosive reactive armor [ERA] mounted. This variant is more likely for encounter by US forces. A late production version has a new turret similar to the T-80U but fitted with the turbine engine and first generation ERA.

T-80U: First observed in 1989 and referred to by NATO as the SMT (Soviet Medium Tank) M1989. The new turret has an improved frontal armor package with second generation explosive reactive armor. This version is equipped with the 9K120 Svir (AT-11 Sniper) laser-guided anti-tank missile in place of the older Kobra. Other improvements include a more powerful and fuel efficient gas turbine engine (GTD-1250, developing 1250 hp).

T-80UD: Version produced in Ukraine with a 1000-hp diesel engine instead of the turbine engine, and 1st generation ERA. In August 1996 Pakistan placed an order for 320 T-80UD MBTs under a deal worth about $580 million, and the first 15 were delivered in February 1997.

T-80UK: Command version with R-163-50K and R-163-U radios, TNA-4 land navigation system, and an electronic fuze-setting device that permits use of Ainet Shrapnel Round. The AGAVA thermal sight provides a 2,600-meter night acquisition range.

T-80UM: Upgraded with a gunner's thermal sight with additional tank commander viewing screen. Similar to standard T-80U, but without IR searchlight and with enlarged night sight housing. Outfitted with 2nd Generation ERA.

T-80UM1 "Bars" (Snow Leopard) : Prototype with Shtora and Arena defensive systems, though apparently without Kontakt-5 reactive armor tiles on its turret, since the Arena system with fragmentation charge launchers arranged in a semicircle around the turret front may preclude mounting reactive armor.

T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" : Features a new turret with highly sloped front and a bustle-mounted autoloader on a standard T-80U hull. Also incoporates a redesigned ammunition storage scheme to reduce vulnerability to ammunition fires. It is unclear whether this is simply a technology testbed demonstrator vehicle, possibly intended mainly for export, or whether it may enter Russian service in stead of the new Uralvagonzavod design.

T-84: Recent Ukrainian upgrade of T-80UD with a welded turret, a French ALIS thermal sight, a more powerful engine, optional use of ARENA active protection system (APS) and SHTORA-1 active IR ATGM jammer system. Prototypes have been demonstrated, and the tank is available for export.




And the T-94:

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.



Don't know about the T-95 though.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Don't know about the T-95 though.

I don't know why you call it T-94, but info you gave is about T-95.

[Saint Marcus]

The Federation of American Scientists labels it the T-94 (though with a question mark)

[Wraith]

--"but T-80U already have those features now."

Not really. The Russian reactive armor is absolutely nothing like what is described in the FCS documents (electromagnetic armor), for instance, nor does the turrent seem to be crewless.

BTW, your T-80U link there describes some major problems with the older autoloaders ("invariably killing the crew" was one of the phrases used). I think the past objections to autoloaders are only now being overcome to any degree (speed, reliability, survivability, ammo capacity, etc).

--"I can assure you this is true. I saw it with my own eyes, many time."

I don't see why this is a big deal. Firing in mid-air just means pulling the trigger. The more important question is whether or not they're able to hit anything (on purpose) while doing this, and what kind of limits they have on targeting while doing so (I'd think that firing on a target that's to your side while you're in mid-air with a big gun would be a really bad idea if you wanted to land properly).

--"Sure you want, but we don't sell the know-how to you."

You're not the only people designing reactive armor, and the US still has a spy network. I dare say the Russian companies would be happy to get their hands on US electronics packages.

--"Btw, if you compare the pictures of T-95 with pictures of American 'Future Combat System' you'll see that those pictures very common."

That's pretty irrelevant. All it tells you is that both the US and Russia are concentrating on low-profile tanks with sloped armor. The main points of the FCS lie elsewhere, largely with sophisticated electronics packages, but also with things like electromagnetic cannon and hybrid electric power systems that are rather more experimental than anything in production.

Wraith
"She's an unremarkable woman... who's dazzling, dangerous, and utterly untouchable. Just an ordinary woman..."
-- Faye Valentine ("Cowboy Bebop")

[Dr Strangelove]

If the T-90, T-94, or T-95 hasn't been produced yet then what is the point?

[Az]

T-90 is already in service with the Russian military ( and the Indian as well , IIRC ) for quite a while.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Serb

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html

Btw, if you compare the pictures of T-95 with pictures of American 'Future Combat System' you'll see that those pictures very common. Americans want to create such tank in future, while we already have working prototype. So when you finally create tank of such design don't tell the Russians stole the design of their tank from Americans.

The US also has a working prototype of a new tank. I saw it on the History Channel 3 or 4 month ago.
The T-95 with 152mm gun was tried on our M-60A2 back in Vietnam. I don't know why the US gave up on it development.

[Alephz]

Btw, if you compare the pictures of T-95 with pictures of American 'Future Combat System' you'll see that those pictures very common. Americans want to create such tank in future, while we already have working prototype. So when you finally create tank of such design don't tell the Russians stole the design of their tank from Americans.

Yes, this remenbers me when Russians designed Su-27 and mig-29, then Americans said that they were a copy of f-15 but actually f-15 was a copy of mig-25 (a gift of the traitor Victor Belenko)

[Serb]

Originally posted by Wraith
Not really. The Russian reactive armor is absolutely nothing like what is described in the FCS documents (electromagnetic armor), for instance, nor does the turrent seem to be crewless.

Then can you explain to me how this mysterious electromagnetic armor works? Is it some kind of force shield, like in Star Wars?

BTW, your T-80U link there describes some major problems with the older autoloaders ("invariably killing the crew" was one of the phrases used). I think the past objections to autoloaders are only now being overcome to any degree (speed, reliability, survivability, ammo capacity, etc).

"invariably killing the crew" ???? I don't know who said this. Any examples? Me and my buddy who commanded T-72, never heard about this, and btw, he keep telling me that manual loading of cannon in battle conditions is sucks in compare with automatic mode and I'm fully agree with him.

I don't see why this is a big deal. Firing in mid-air just means pulling the trigger. The more important question is whether or not they're able to hit anything (on purpose) while doing this, and what kind of limits they have on targeting while doing so (I'd think that firing on a target that's to your side while you're in mid-air with a big gun would be a really bad idea if you wanted to land properly).

They are landing very well, don't warry. And shoot very well too, T-80U have unique fire stabilization system.

You're not the only people designing reactive armor, and the US still has a spy network. I dare say the Russian companies would be happy to get their hands on US electronics packages.

We are. The only country who tried to do so is Israel, but our ERA much, much better. And you don't need spies you already have examples, and already tested them. The major problem for you as I've said that this invention under copyright and companies don't have know-how.

That's pretty irrelevant. All it tells you is that both the US and Russia are concentrating on low-profile tanks with sloped armor. The main points of the FCS lie elsewhere, largely with sophisticated electronics packages, but also with things like electromagnetic cannon and hybrid electric power systems that are rather more experimental than anything in production.

Electromagnetic cannon? Another Star Wars thing?

[Wraith]

--"Then can you explain to me how this mysterious electromagnetic armor works?"

Nope. I haven't been able to find enough details on it to speculate.

--"invariably killing the crew" ???? I don't know who said this."

One of the pages you linked to do, when talking about rounds penetrating the turret (since they'd hit the carosel containing all the rounds, which was not seperated from the crew compartment).

--"They are landing very well, don't warry. And shoot very well too,"

I think you kind of missed my point there. Did you see the thing actually hit a target, or were they just jumping and shooting? The latter is really meaningless, unless you're a big Dukes of Hazard fan.

--"The major problem for you as I've said that this invention under copyright and companies don't have know-how."

Yeah, I'm sure copyright is going to do so much to stop us from stealing military developments.

--"Electromagnetic cannon? Another Star Wars thing?"

No, this is just a simple railgun, and those have been around in various forms for a long time. The University of Texas at Austin is actually involved in one of the military electromagentic cannon projects, but I think they're working on a naval version (destroyer mounted).
The principle of operation of these things is very simple. It's just the Lorentz force. They're capable of producing extremely high muzzle velocities (current railgun can produce muzzle velocities more than twice that of the 140mm cannon), which is obviously very good for penetration.
There are a few problems to be worked out. Power is the biggest one for a tank-mobile system, although one based on a hybrid electric engine should be fine. The ones mounted on nuclear powered ships, of course, don't need to worry about this.
There's also the matter of the velocities being so high that any friction between the shell and the barrel will lead to bits of each being turned into a superheated plasma, which can interfere with repeated firing (even with teflon coated rounds and barrel outside the conductors). This is being worked on, and last I checked the UT at Austin gun could fire around 3000 rpm, but only 6 shots in a row (the plasma problem). This was a couple years ago, so they've probably improved it by now.

These things have a number of combat advantages. The high-velocity for penetration, the small-calibre for larger ammunition loads, no chemical explosive to, well, explode or degrade. They've also got incredible accurate ranges (hypervelocity rounds) and aren't even high-maintenance.

And like I said, they've been around for a long time. I remember a Discovery channel program about ten years ago showing a test firing of a railgun. The 40mm plastic round punched a nice big hole through a foot of armor plating.

Wraith
Ban the Bomb - Save the world for conventional warfare