T-95 vs T-14. Comparison from The National Interest

On September 17, The National Interest published a new article by Charlie Gao, “Meet the T-95: The Russian Super Tank Moscow Passed On (A Big Mistake?)” - “Meet the T-95: a Russian supertank that was abandoned (in vain?)” The author considered one of the most interesting Russian projects of armored vehicles, and also tried to compare it with later developments.

Russian super tank

The author recalls that in stories Soviet and Russian tank building had many breakthrough projects. At the end of the Cold War, a new armored vehicle was developed in the USSR that could surpass all modern Tanks NATO. The development of such a tank called the T-95 ("Object 195") continued until the beginning of the tenth years, after which it gave way to the new T-14 Armata project.

C. Gao points out that many still consider the T-95 to be a better example. He offers to consider its features and compare with a newer development.

The “195 Object” was created since 1988 in the framework of the work “Improvement-88”. The aim of the project was to create a new main tank superior to foreign equipment. The T-95 was to be distinguished from existing Soviet tanks by improved protection, as well as more powerful weapons with increased range of fire.

Tank survivability was increased by moving the entire crew inside the hull and automation of the tower. Later, these developments on T-95 were used in the construction of "Almaty".

The tank received combined armor, supplemented by dynamic and active protection. All of these solutions for the T-95 were reproduced on the T-14. In particular, at the “195 Object”, an early-type Relic type DZ was used, which was an option for the development of the “Contact-5” system. Later versions of the "Relic" are used in modern projects.

The T-95 was distinguished by a higher tower, which made it possible to increase the angles of the vertical aiming of the guns - primarily declination. The Soviet tank building school traditionally sacrificed declination to reduce the size of the towers, but the design of the 195 Object has other characteristics. C. Gao suggests that Soviet engineers could use foreign ideas in this project.

The main weapon of the T-95 was the 152-smoothbore gun 2A83 with impressive characteristics. The initial velocity of the armor-piercing projectile was up to 2 km / s. The gun could use existing 152-mm ammunition of various types, possibly even nuclear. New guided missiles were developed to increase the range of the tank.

Instead of coaxial machine gun on the T-95 used 30-mm automatic gun 2A42. Previously, similar solutions were used in world tank building, but the “Object 195” became one of the champions in relation to the caliber of paired weapons.

The T-95 had optical and thermal imaging sights, as well as a radar sighting system. With the help of the latter, the tank could find targets at any time of the day and in the presence of any interference for optics. It is assumed that the new T-14 MBT can also use radar, but there is no separate sight of this kind, like on the T-95.

According to some reports, the “195 Object” could be embedded in network structures, which made it possible to fully use the potential of the 152-mm guns. Shooting could be carried out by third-party target designation from ground reconnaissance or UAV.

Which is better?

Based on the available data, C. Gao draws some conclusions about the potential of the T-95 and T-14 tanks. In general, he calls the “195 Object” a more powerful and efficient model of armored vehicles that surpasses a modern car.

The advantages of the T-95 are the more powerful main and twin weapons and a different composition of sighting systems. Booking two cars is rated as similar.

However, the T-14 can also have advantages. Since the termination of work on the “195 Object”, technology has stepped forward, and all such achievements could be used to create “Armata”. There is evidence of the advantage of the T-14 in protective equipment. To counter radar and other means of the enemy, the T-14 has not only a complex of optoelectronic suppression, like the T-95. Radio equipment and various launchers are also used.

Ratings and comparisons

Foreign media traditionally show great interest in promising Russian armored vehicles, and even a significant lack of information does not prevent the appearance of new publications. In the case of a recent article from The National Interest, data shortages exist in the context of both of the samples under consideration.

The 195 Object was created from the late eighties to the beginning of the tenth years. To date, work has been discontinued, but much of the information about the project is still inaccessible to the general public. The current T-14 project is being developed right now, which is why the industry respects the necessary level of secrecy. As a result, we and far abroad do not have all the desired information about the T-95 and T-14. Moreover, the lack of information does not interfere with the comparison of these MBTs, even if based on fragmentary data.

Conclusions by C. Gao based on the available information can hardly be considered unambiguous. For example, he believes that the 152-mm gun provides the T-95 tank advantages over the "Armata" with the 125-mm gun. However, disputes about the optimal caliber of a promising tank gun have been going on for quite some time, and so far have not led to a definite result.

Both 125 mm and 152 mm have their pros and cons; every advantage has a disadvantage. For example, an increase in caliber leads to an increase in firepower, but drastically reduces the ammunition size, and 125-mm shells with smaller dimensions are characterized by less high characteristics. Such ambiguity led to the fact that the T-14 installed 125-mm gun, and a more powerful system is considered only for the future.

Curious evaluation of fire controls. On the one hand, the T-95 received a more developed set of devices, but on the other, the T-14 is created on the basis of modern components. The lack of necessary data does not allow us to unequivocally determine the winner in this matter.

The positive feature of the “195 Object” is the ability to integrate into the contours of command and control and exchange data with other combat vehicles, reconnaissance, command, etc. As far as we know, such opportunities are now considered mandatory for modern technology and, as a result, are present in all new models, including at "Almaty".

It must be borne in mind that a promising combat vehicle for the army should not only show high “tabular” characteristics, but also meet the requirements of the customer - technical, operational, economic, etc. The events of recent years show that the T-95 did not meet the actual wishes of the military, and according to a new technical task, they developed a completely different tank - the T-14. Accordingly, the rejection of the “195 Object” is hardly to be considered a mistake. The army had reasons for such a decision.

What exactly “Object 195” did not suit the military is not fully known. The observed differences between the T-95 and the newer T-14 may be the basis for assumptions in this area. However, they can be interpreted in different ways, including using as a reason for criticism.

Perhaps in the distant future, Russian military and designers will publish full data on promising MBT projects T-95 and T-14, which will allow for a full comparison and determine which of the vehicles was better. However, this will not happen today or tomorrow, which will contribute to the emergence of new attempts to compare equipment based on the available limited data.

Article "Meet the T-95: The Russian Super Tank Moscow Passed On (A Big Mistake?)":
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-t-95-russian-super-tank-moscow-passed-big-mistake-81296

Comments

[Shuttle]

Here is a good, useful review and analysis of a foreign article. My regards.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Shuttle

Here is a good, useful review and analysis of a foreign article.

How can you compare the project and the existing equipment? On paper, the T-95 could generally fly into space, the level of electronics existing in the USSR in the 80s would not allow much to be embodied in metal from the project, both in size and in terms of performance characteristics. And for the cannon, how many shots is the barrel designed for, what is the rate of fire and what is better to make 6 shots of 125 or 1? And given the weight of the shot 152, then what reliability should an automatic loader have? I think that the T-152 project is a fantasy, and the T-95 is a reality.

[Zaurbek]

It was made and the gun was tested ... The T-14 is practically the same as the T-95, adjusted for Russian electronics in 201 and a 125mm gun.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Zaurbek

They made it and tested the gun.

This is not enough to install on a tank. What is the resource of the barrel, what is the rate of fire, transportable ammunition. How much will this make the tank more expensive for the economy. All this makes the T-95 a fantasy that crashed into harsh reality. Is it like in WWII that one Tiger or six T-34s are better?

[Zaurbek]

With the gun, everything seems to be in order. He was not pulled by the industry of the USSR. And then the economy. I do not think that UVZ even now makes it easy to produce the T-14 .... and 2A82 guns to it.
The concept has also changed. The T-95 is a tank destroyer, the T-14 is a modern and protected tank at a modern level. And besides him, a more powerful trolley for other equipment.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Zaurbek

He was not pulled by the industry of the USSR. And then the economy. I do not think that UVZ even now makes it easy to produce the T-14 .... and 2A82 guns to it.

So you yourself answered almost all the questions that the economy is at the forefront when adopting anything. And for the role of tank destroyers, infantry and aviation with a huge variety of means of destroying tanks and a specialized expensive tank destroyer are neither suitable for the economy nor the army. From this I conclude that the decision on T-95 and T-14 is correct.

[Zaurbek]

The Russian Federation regularly participates in conflicts and the Russian Federation needs a tank with good protection and active and passive and modern communications and optics and a heavy and protected infantry fighting vehicle. How much? not ready to say. but not thousands. A 125mm 2A82 must be mastered Seino and put on new and modernized machines T-90M.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Zaurbek

The Russian Federation regularly participates in conflicts and the Russian Federation needs a tank with good protection and active and passive and modern communications and optics and a heavy and protected infantry fighting vehicle.

And what does the T-14 not match this? And no one is canceling the modernization of the T-90.

[Zaurbek]

I do not mind him .... the question is how much is it? And the second: why is it pr = fundamentally better than the T90M, provided it is equipped with the same 2A82 gun and the KAZ system?

[qQQQ]

How many? The question is purely economic, how much our darling will pull without harming herself. On the second question: passive protection is much higher, and KAZ is not a panacea. Personally, I see him as a breakthrough tank, an analogue of the actions of heavy Wehrmacht tanks in the Second World War. To breach in defense, and a breakthrough is already being introduced, which is easier.

[Zaurbek]

But in this case, the problem ... there is no advantage in range (lack of 152mm) and NATO dramatically increased both the quantity and quality of the ATGMs. I see it as an armament of units of constant readiness. And the T-90 is already the second line. Or the second version of the T-15 and T-90M ....

[qQQQ]

Quote: Zaurbek

But in this case, the problem ... there is no advantage in range

The range in this case is not so important, on the European theater of operations rarely when it exceeds 2 km. And as for the ATGM, all the same, the T-14 has much higher protection than the T-90 and the hatches are thicker.

[Zaurbek]

The projectile also does not give advantages, and the ATGMs already pierce the forehead of 1200mm for DZ ....

[vladcub]

Let's ask the more knowledgeable, otherwise my sofa grumbles: instead of increasing production of the T-90 Vladimir, they spent time and money on the development of a new model.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: vladcub

otherwise my sofa grumbles: instead of increasing production of the T-90 "Vladimir", they spent time and money on the development of a new model.

And some offer immediately return the T-34-85. It turns out very economically! There, the first batch in Malaysia has already been purchased :)

[Per se.]

Quote: qqqq

at the forefront, when taking anything into service, is the economy.

If so, how can an expensive and complex base be designated in advance as a "platform"? If the initial price of the T-95 tank (object 195), in the case of the start of serial construction, was estimated at 450 million, with a powerful 152 mm cannon and the widespread use of titanium in the design to facilitate, then the T-14 is in the "budget" version, without 152 mm guns and without the widespread use of titanium, it was valued at "only" 400 million.

Now about the "Armata" itself, ala "platform", this is the same as on the basis of "Lexus" or "Bentley" to make more "boots" and "loaves" ... Technology is not born as a platform, technology becomes a platform, on proven, a well-proven base, developed by industry, relatively inexpensive. For example, a whole family of equipment based on the T-72 - ACS, TOS, bridgelayers, SEM, BMPT, and others. This is the platform.

Personally, I sincerely regret the lost time and the ruined supertank, which was almost ready, it only remained to make the third version for the State tests, spending a total of 700 million. Alas, they regretted this money, but only on R&D and R&D "Armata" spent 64 billion, and hundreds of millions on props for parades, raw, not accepted for service samples. This is strong, the T-95 could be ready as early as 2005 for mass production, and now 2019 is ending, we are still waiting. It may still have to return to Object 195, abandoning the platform adventure. The figure shows a side projection of the T-95 (object 195).

[Per se.]

Also, in the figure T-14 and T-95.

[bayard]

Quote: Per se.

It may still have to return to Object 195, abandoning the "platform" adventure.

Yes, everything seems to be going to this - disappointment in the combat capabilities of the T-14, too expensive and a small gain in performance characteristics compared to the well-developed industry of the T-90 - only 15% in terms of the totality of characteristics. Therefore, in order not to waste work for nothing, they began ... to prepare a modification of the T-14 with 152 mm. gun.
It is just GLITTER!
Instead of the T-95, in 15 years we will get ... a weakened (or equivalent) version of the T-95 for much (!) Big money.
Thanks to Medvedev (then the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia) for such a chudo-yudo as "Armata" - it was HE who set the task of developing this particular machine.

[Red_Baron]

What you write is called a straw scarecrow. That is, you replace the concept and argue with something completely different.
Where did you see the disappointment in the combat capabilities of the T-14, except for the sofa talkers? Even the author of the article writes that in fact there is no data, do you have data on tests, or on the basis of what are you building conclusions? 15% of what characteristics did anyone have the mind to think so? That is, if the tank could just move at a speed of 140 km / h, then it would immediately be recognized as the best, even if otherwise it would be identical. After all, according to the sum of the technical characteristics, he would have jumped up. but nothing that the latest modifications of the T-90 are already bursting from all sides. The platform as a modern tank has completely exhausted itself. There is simply no place in it. All of its modernization is an attempt at not expensive cost to use what is at an acceptable level. About some kind of perspective, often even relevant, just do not have to talk.

Quote: bayard

Therefore, in order not to waste work for nothing, they began ... to prepare a modification of the T-14 with 152 mm. gun.

This is nonsense. Originally planned 152mm gun.

Quote: bayard

Instead of the T-95, in 15 years we will get ... a weakened (or equivalent) version of the T-95 for much (!) Big money.

Another nonsense. Announce the cost of the T-95 in production at the current time and T-14. You again referred to some fantasies. And you continue to argue as if the T-95 is already there and you can somehow compare it.

Quote: bayard

Thanks to Medvedev (then the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia) for such a chudo-yudo as "Armata" - it was HE who set the task of developing this particular machine.

I didn’t hear more delirium, to be honest. You mean Russia is not particularly shit. You call it a rashka as you are trying to cheat. I do not like the country, I went nafig from it.
Medvedev was president, approx. He is a developer of tanks or something, or some kind of expert, how could he set the task of developing exactly this or not. Does he even know tanks? what nonsense are you writing? You just need to appoint the culprit in the fact that everything in the world is not the way you now wanted to. And here is the main question, why should the world be as you want? Who are you?

[bayard]

Quote: Red_Baron

Where did you see the disappointment in the combat capabilities of the T-14, except for the sofa talkers? Even the author of the article writes that in fact there is no data, do you have data on tests, or on the basis of what are you building conclusions? 15% of what characteristics did anyone have the mind to think so?

You probably read the first article about the T-14?
Or are you just listening to bravura marches in the media?
On our site, this topic has been raised many times, and many times has been revealed. Including in the comments of COMPETENT specialists in this matter.
All numbers come from there.
Look for their opinions on this topic, but I have no time. I expressed my opinion and have been holding it for more than a year. Namely, that the T-14 is justified only if it was equipped with a 152 mm gun. And in this, experts in this matter are in solidarity with me. Including the commander of the genus of these same troops of the same time when the fate of the T-95 was decided and a decision was made to create a new nedotank in the dimension of T-95, but with a gun and capabilities - military, slightly higher than that of the T-90.
I have written enough about this on this site and do not want to repeat myself. And real experts are tired of such discussions.
I like "Armata" - a flag in hand.
And for me, it’s better 5-6. T-72B3 get troops in his place. Although real - up to a dozen, and this is a whole tank company.
A qualitative breakthrough in the combat capabilities of this product is not observed. Is that for the parade.
And about the article - very much. Very weak article. Without proper analysis. The site was unmatched by the best.

Quote: Red_Baron

get dressed.
Quote: bayard
Therefore, in order not to waste work for nothing, they began ... to prepare a modification of the T-14 with 152 mm. gun.

This is nonsense. Originally planned 152mm gun.

That you wrote nonsense.
It is under 125 mm. the caliber of this tank and it was ORDERED to design.
In order to avoid the need to develop and PRODUCE a whole line of new tank ammunition, an unusual caliber for the tank.

Quote: Red_Baron

You again referred to some fantasies. And you continue to argue as if the T-95 is already there and you can somehow compare it.

The T-95 is no longer just there. He was !
Yes, only in 3 copies. But it was tested and the industry was ready for its production. Then. At that moment .
And the T-14 now exists at 20, God forbid, in 30 copies. And you know, there are problems with him. Moreover, the conceptual nature. Why and resumed work on the gun for him 152 caliber. And they are underway.
And with the correctness of the chosen lineup, questions also arose. And they nevertheless come to the conclusion that the lineup of the T-95 was more rational.
Have you heard of this?
Your problem.

Quote: Red_Baron

Quote: bayard
Thanks to Medvedev (then the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia) for such a chudo-yudo as "Armata" - it was HE who set the task of developing this particular machine.

I didn’t hear more delirium, to be honest.

I heard this nonsense personally from Medvedev. Not directly, but in the recording that was broadcast by TV - the task of developing a whole line of "completely new armored vehicles" and certainly without relying on previous developments, but necessarily from scratch.
This is a fact that has been documented and people involved in IT remember well.
This is how the "non-analogous" "Armata", "Kurgan-25" and other "Boomerangs" appeared.
And where are they now?
Who needs them in the army?
Unless they are trying to make something decent out of "Armata".

Quote: Red_Baron

You're not talking about Russia, especially shit. You call it a rashka as you are trying to cheat. I do not like the country, I went nafig from it.

You are a young man rude to deign?
For not particularly gifted "Rasha" (or according to your "Rashka", which words I have NEVER used, especially in public) means "God". RA - God, suffix "sha" - belonging. That is - GOD'S DECREE.
So if some one (the creation of that same God) uses such words in the address of my Motherland, she herself does not know that she blesses her, thinking that she insults her by making faces.
Do not be like these characters Andrei - very ugly. HIGHLY .
Although I was born in the Urals, I now live in Donetsk and have not yet received citizenship of the Russian Federation.
But if I hear something like this from someone alive ... I will tear my tongue out and break my legs.

Quote: Red_Baron

Who are you?

And you, Andryusha, who is it that you allow yourself such indecency?
Are you sure you can repeat the same in person?
But I will answer the question. Very briefly.
Member of the Union of Soviet Officers.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: bayard

Namely, that the T-14 is justified only if it was equipped with a 152 mm gun.

If the T-14, with the same combat capabilities as the T-90, gives more chances for the survival of the crew, its delivery to the troops will already be justified.

[bayard]

Quote: Bad_gr

If the T-14, with the same combat capabilities as the T-90, gives more chances for the survival of the crew, its delivery to the troops will already be justified.

This is if prices are comparable. But this is just not the case.
A tank is a weapon, an instrument of war. Consumable tool. Therefore, unit production of this kind of technology will never justify itself.
For an amount equal to the price of T-14, you can build 1,5 - 2 T-90 of the latest modification. Or upgrade from 5 - 6 to 10 tanks such as T-72 or T-80.
And now, think for yourself what you would prefer to have a tank regiment / brigade commander, a dozen T-14 or 50 - 60, or even 100 upgraded to T-90 level, reliable T-72 or T-80?
For war, not cheap PR.
The answer is obvious, because the T-14 does not give a tangible increase in combat capabilities. In terms of aggregate characteristics, it is only 15% better than tanks of the previous generation.
What is better to have is one (albeit very good) 125 mm gun. , or from 5 to 10 guns of the same caliber?
That is why the modernized T-72 and T-80 are coming to the troops - here the price-performance ratio has the highest possible return.
In addition, there is such a question as ensuring the life cycle, maintaining combat readiness, mastery in the troops, the readiness of technical personnel, the availability of spare parts, evacuation vehicles, etc., etc., etc.
To decide on the admission to the troops of a completely new model of equipment, you need to understand what it will cost. And not only in money, but also in a failure in combat readiness, until all these issues have been resolved, he has been trained, infrastructure has been created, and spare parts stores are full.
And if all these ordeals are only for the sake of 15% increase in combat capabilities (albeit with much better survivability in battle), then any commander will disown such "happiness" to the last.

Another thing is if the new sample provides a real breakthrough in quality indicators. If he gives an overwhelming superiority over enemy technology and opens up new horizons in combat use ... the T-95 provided this.
T-14 - no.

And the survival of the crew ... this is important.
But if the crew survived, but did not fulfill the combat mission. Does this justify?
Just because instead of a dozen normal tanks, ONE was purchased. And his combat capabilities simply did not suffice.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

For an amount equal to the price of T-14, you can build 1,5 - 2 T-90 of the latest modification. Or upgrade from 5 - 6 to 10 tanks such as T-72 or T-80.

Quote: bayard

A tank is a weapon, an instrument of war. Consumable tool.

I wrote in another post, but you have not had time to read it yet. For the mobilization army - yes, because she has much lower training. And for the acting one, where every tanker is a professional with years of training, the better the tool, the more he can do. And so in all armies in fact. The main backbone is the latest technology. And fully modernizable, the capabilities of which are lower, but which are much cheaper.

Quote: bayard

What is better to have is one (albeit very good) 125 mm gun. , or from 5 to 10 guns of the same caliber?

Does it seem to you that the question is very simple? By the way, does a tank have a gun like this?
She alone is one, and if it is destroyed, then there will be nothing. But if 5-10 are not able to use the latest ammunition and therefore hit the enemy because of this, and therefore are of little use in this, the question is seen a little differently.
And by the way, not 5 and not 10. If the T-14 is in the normal series, prices will be much lower, depending on the configuration. actually in foreign armies with the expectation of such a price, after 200 or how many pieces there are from the series.

Quote: bayard

To decide on the admission to the troops of a completely new model of equipment, you need to understand what it will cost. And not only in money, but also in a failure in combat readiness, until all these issues have been resolved, he has been trained, infrastructure has been created, and spare parts stores are full.

And this will have to be done for anyone, only at another moment you may not have money, opportunities or anything else for it. And if tomorrow is war, God forbid of course.

Quote: bayard

And if all these ordeals are only for the sake of 15% increase in combat capabilities (albeit with much better survivability in battle), then any commander will disown such "happiness" to the last.

I justified that it was not 15. By the way, the manufacturer claims that only a new gun provides a 30% increase in power compared to its predecessors. And this is including perspective.

Quote: bayard

If he gives an overwhelming superiority over enemy technology and opens up new horizons in combat use ... the T-95 provided this.
T-14 - no.

Was the T-95 built, passed state tests? Based on what at least some conclusions about him?

Quote: bayard

Just because instead of a dozen normal tanks, ONE was purchased. And his combat capabilities simply did not suffice.

A dozen is exaggerating again. why not talk about two? Although I doubt that Armata costs like two T-90MS or more.

[Romka47]

Yes, the fact of the matter is that the guys count money and tanks, forgetting completely about the crews, "oh, I need one armata, better 6 T-72" well, put your children in these 6 tanks, will you also be better? let them burn into a tank of the mid-20th century, and not get off with a light concussion in a modern car, the main thing is the folder on the sofa will be happy, the pit is so profitable.
Since the crews have touched, what is easier (cheaper) to train one crew for a modern tank, or 6 (!) Crews under T72B3?
no, I’m not at all against the T-72B3, I fully support the idea that this is correct with thousands of ready-made corps, you can quickly and cheaply supply troops with far from the last tanks, but why, for the sake of this, you need to completely abandon modern ones?
Well, here’s KV-1 (armata of the late 30s and early 40s) and BT-5 (T72B3), now imagine that we would have refused new tanks, and at the beginning of the war we would have 1 pieces instead of 6 KB BT5.
We recall the feat of Kolobanov, would he have uncoiled 6 enemy tanks on 22 BTshkami? and then he closed the hole to Leningrad ....
And under the scattering of 6 BT tanks, would they be able to stand at the intersection for several days blocking the road to an entire regiment?
All of us here are smart and prudent in front of the monitor, the army requires enormous funds, and sometimes huge amounts of money are put into development and it turns out to be worthless, but often to understand that it doesn’t need to be done. You can spend nothing anywhere, but we all know that
"the one who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's" ...

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

You probably read the first article about the T-14?
Or are you just listening to bravura marches in the media?

Is there only black and white for you? You yourself have confirmed my words. Bravura marches are impossible, you can only listen to the Chernukha vilification of the country and lies in its relation, I understand you correctly?

Quote: bayard

All numbers come from there.

So you don’t even understand what I wrote to you? Comparing tanks purely by TTX is stupid. It makes at least some sense on similar machines to see, for example, evolution.
To compare a revolutionary new model, in which there are elements that are relevant now and have a foundation for the future, which in the previous model are not just not there, they are not provided for and not possible, it's just that I don’t know what. So you can compare the horse-drawn carriage and the car and tell, well, he spends gasoline, and the performance characteristics are only 15% better. I do not know how competent and frank your authorities were with you, but this is not possible to take into account in good health.

Quote: bayard

I expressed my opinion and have been holding it for more than a year.

You did not say anything. In fact of the matter. You refer to someone’s words that someone has already decided everything there, but you cannot even repeat and justify what it is connected with. Where is your opinion? I do not understand. You write about your opinion and that you hold it, if you have no opinion, you only refer to strangers. Now, if I refer to someone, then I can briefly, to the best of my understanding, justify why and what I actually refer to, you - why not.

Quote: bayard

Namely, that the T-14 is justified only if it was equipped with a 152 mm gun.

No, of course, I understand that you can’t explain anything, someone said there and you heard, but no. He is justified in general by everyone. I wrote to you earlier, but you could not read. T-90 has exhausted the possibilities for some serious modernization. And the design and dimensions do not allow to seriously change its capabilities. Do you understand? Any tank with equal performance characteristics with it, but having a modernization potential, more space - it is already a priori much better. I'm not even talking about the future.

Quote: bayard

when the fate of the T-95 was decided and the decision was made to create a new nedotank in the dimension of T-95

You contradict yourself. Now you write that the fate of the T-95 was being decided, but earlier it was always referred to as if it was a ready-made tank with all the problems solved and showed something in all the tests.

Quote: bayard

And for me, it’s better 5-6. T-72B3 get troops in his place. Although real - up to a dozen, and this is a whole tank company.

Why instead? The first time I heard about the B3 modification - B3? Why instead? In the Soviet Union, several thousand T-72s were created; restore from storage and upgrade.
I already understood, you will not understand, and this is your mistake. T-72 is a good tank, and is suitable for mobilization war. But in the army, he can not compare with the tanks of the enemy. And after some number of years it will be so behind that there’s nothing to talk about. No need to go far. T72 Saddam was somehow not very against the Abrams and Bradley. Yes, for various reasons, this is not the case. You are now proposing to stay in the past. Without a future. No chance. And tomorrow even 5 T-72s will not play a role. And we get the T-62 against Merkava. Somewhere it was already.

Quote: bayard

It is under 125 mm. the caliber of this tank and it was ORDERED to design.

Yes, maybe I was mistaken here, at the first publications about the T-14 they reported the possibility of a release with a 152mm gun.

Quote: bayard

I heard this nonsense personally from Medvedev. Not directly, but in the recording that was broadcast by TV - the task of developing a whole line of "completely new armored vehicles" and certainly without relying on previous developments, but necessarily from scratch.

It’s ridiculous. First personally, then already on record. And where is there anything about Medvedev about the T-14? Where is the rationale for what he knows in general what kind of tank and all that? You seriously do not see the difference to declare some kind of common words, to give directions. And to understand the difference in designs, to understand the topic and indicate that this is what is needed and not this, because like that.

Quote: bayard

And so there were "no analogs"

We have? It cannot be, because only Western types of weapons and equipment can be unparalleled in the world. Therefore, you are so stigmatized when these words are used for Russian technology. Well, we will come back to this.

Quote: bayard

And where are they now?
Who needs them in the army?

Don't you even know that? And why then do argue at all. I'm already starting to understand that for you, the argument is not understanding what this is about.
Who needs it? To everyone. Their analogues are, to one degree or another, used in all adequate armies in the world. I believe that you did not know this either.

[bayard]

Quote: Red_Baron

Is there only black and white for you? You yourself have confirmed my words. Bravura marches are impossible, you can only listen to the Chernukha vilification of the country and lies in its relation, I understand you correctly?

No wrong.
Just the country in this area is doing everything right.
T-72 and T-80 are being modernized and are returning to service - this is correct, because the times are alarming and tanks need a LOT. And fast .
The decision to build a limited T-14 series is right. New equipment needs to be tested, to identify childhood diseases, to develop tactics for combat use, to gain experience in operation and repair.
The decision to build a 152 mm tank on the Armata platform. gun - that's right. And such work is underway.
I just feel sorry for the lost 15 years when such a tank was already created, the industry was ready for production but ... the program was closed. Then it was decided to create a lightweight version with 125 mm. a cannon - almost a completely new tank, from scratch. And when it was created, it turned out that it would still be necessary with 152 mm. ... and again work on a new modification. Those. return already on a new platform (chassis) to the old T-95 ideology.
But it was enough just to slow down the launch of the series (T-95) for a while, release an experimental batch for break-in in the troops and ... wait until the time requires.

I am not at all against the T-14 with 125 mm. with a cannon as such - once created and it turns out, let’s say, as anti-tank special forces, but we can’t expect a large series of them - the roads do not provide a significant increase in combat characteristics. But with a gun 152 mm. everything changes immediately.
It is clear that there will be no return to the T-95 and the line for the T-14 is ready and has begun mass production. Therefore, the T-14 will be brought up to the T-95 level already on the Armata platform. And the fact that there will be two versions of the T-14 with two different guns is good ... But it turned out MUCH more expensive and longer than it could have been if not for the nonsense of the interim President Medvedev (and his minister Serdyukov). They not only twisted up with armored vehicles. Just remember what was done with aviation, the destruction of air bases ... and now they are being bravely restored.
The fact that Kurgantsy-25, a monstrous box size (a grenade launcher's dream) with an equally monstrous cost, did not go into production, is GOOD! The state acted WISE. But the new version of the BMP-z "Dragoon" is good. Increased armor, more powerful engine, protection systems taken from the same Kurganets ... And a reasonable price. And the industry is ready for such production ... This is good.
And it does the state.
Russia does not have the largest military budget, but meanwhile the army is rearming itself. Not two thousand Armata, but modernized MBTs, modernized BMP-2, BMP-3 and even BMP-1 with 30mm. combat module instead of the old cannon. Modernized "Peonies" and "Acacia" (and "Coalition" is still waiting in the wings, albeit good).
So does the State!
And it is right .
It's good .
It is RATIONAL.
Therefore, when the State decides that it is more important to have 5 - 10 modernized MBTs, and not one "Armata" - this is correct.
I think this is right.
Because in the War of all this - tanks, guns, ammunition, you need LOT, a lot. And all this must be prepared in advance.
And if we start something fundamentally new into production, then this should be a qualitative breakthrough with a sharp increase in combat capabilities.
That's what I'm trying to convey my point about.
Therefore, the T-14 program is being trampled on, skidding, because it cannot yet ensure this qualitative breakthrough with the caliber that it was prescribed for. Therefore, they do not force its production. Therefore, work is underway on the new version with a 152-caliber gun.
And it is right .
This is according to the state.
And no chernukha - one rationalism.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

I'm just sorry for the lost 15 years

Quote: bayard

But it was enough just to slow down the launch of the series (T-95) for a while, release an experimental batch for break-in in the troops and ... wait until the time requires.

I agree with this more than. But there was another option, remember? Buy Leopards 2. I can’t say, but the move that took could have taken Leopards away and any speculations on this topic.
And one more thing, not 15 years. Some modern developments would still have to be introduced into the tank, and this would also take some years. But this is just a clarification in my opinion.

Quote: bayard

But it turned out MUCH more expensive and longer than it could have been if not for the foolishness of interim President Medvedev (and his minister Serdyukov)

And here I can not agree. Although some moments of reforming the army were begun under Ivanov, continued by Serdyukov, although there was still much more harm.

Quote: bayard

The fact that Kurgantsy-25, a monstrous box size (a grenade launcher's dream) with an equally monstrous cost, did not go into production, is GOOD!

I can’t say the same for sure. I do not know. I see Israeli Names, and many modern western species, such as the German Linx And I can’t say that large sizes are bad. And you break them, as they say. Excellent protection including anti-tank systems, comfortable placement of crew and equipment. Something the increasing appearance of such machines in different countries suggests that a future is possible behind them.
I'd rather have a heavy and well-armored infantry fighting vehicle than not.

Quote: bayard

So does the State!
And it is right .
It's good .
It is RATIONAL.

I agree.

Quote: bayard

Therefore, when the State decides that it is more important to have 5 - 10 modernized MBTs, and not one "Armata" - this is correct.
I think this is right.

And I think that is right. And rationally. But the future is still with Armata or the like. And their series is also needed for work in the troops. But not to the detriment of getting upgraded basic horses.

Quote: bayard

Therefore, the T-14 program is being trampled on, skidding, because it cannot yet ensure this qualitative breakthrough with the caliber that it was prescribed for. Therefore, they do not force its production. Therefore, work is underway on the new version with a 152-caliber gun.

Not only that. The main problems are still with finances, unfortunately.

In general, I can’t be 100% sure, maybe in the conditions of the crisis it was different and impossible. But there was no need to immediately make an icon from Almaty. We see before our eyes an example of our colleagues, where decisions are presented on the assignment and a choice is made among them.
I wrote earlier that the choice of a new technology is very serious, because it is for a long time and with a very large financial turnover. You need to think through everything as best as possible.
But on the other hand, I can’t say that Armata is not a good solution.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

You are a young man rude to deign?

Grandfather, you don’t have to go over to personality.

Quote: bayard

For not particularly gifted "Rasha" (or according to your "Rashka", which words I have NEVER used, especially in public) means "God". RA - God, suffix "sha" - belonging. That is - GOD'S DECREE.
So if some one (the creation of that same God) uses such words in the address of my Motherland, she herself does not know that she blesses her, thinking that she insults her by making faces.

This is your point of view. When they speak derogatoryly about my country, distorting the name, mocking it, SLOWING IT. They do not bless her at all. They blaspheme. You again do not quite understand what you are writing about. Here is your name if you had declined somehow and mocked, yes yes, in that phrase you just mocked, you would not like it.

Quote: bayard

And you, Andryusha

Ahh, for you this is the norm, only in relation to others.

Quote: bayard

Thanks to Medvedev (then Commander-in-Chief of All Russia)

Not the Russian Federation, not Russia, as it would be ex officio and naming. But blaspheming Medvedev and distorting his post, you are being trampled upon in my Homeland.
Above you wrote about "no analogs in the world" in relation to our technology. Mockery, which was purposely thrown in to mock the words about our technology, because there can be nothing original or unparalleled in such a country. If you yourself use it well, then you share their opinion.

Quote: bayard

And you, Andryusha, who is it that you allow yourself such indecency?

Vasya, where did you find indecency here? I asked who you think you are, if you allow yourself to persuade my country for the sake of a red word? For some reason, I do not allow this in relation to my country. Maybe the rank did not work out?

[bayard]

Eeeh, Andryusha, Andryusha ... are you definitely from Russia?

Quote: Red_Baron

Quote: bayard
Thanks to Medvedev (then Commander-in-Chief of All Russia)

Not the Russian Federation, not Russia, as it would be ex officio and naming. But blaspheming Medvedev and distorting his post, you are being trampled upon in my Homeland.

Yes, you’re a liberal, my friend.
What a touching concern for today's Prime Minister, author of pension reform and unprecedented economic growth. According to which all of Russia is not just ready to trample ... at the wake, all button accordions would be torn.
Is your homeland exactly Russia?
For judging by the profile picture, I would rather be inclined about your citizenship to a certain country neighboring Russia, which is several kilometers from me — behind the front line.
A very strange impression of your stormy activity today.

[Red_Baron]

Vasya, Vasya, I’m definitely from Russia.

Quote: bayard

Yes, you’re a liberal, my friend.

Uh, do you really understand the meaning of this word? I didn’t say a word such that I could be attributed to them. Although what's wrong with liberalism?

Quote: bayard

What a touching concern for today's Prime Minister, author of pension reform and unprecedented economic growth.

I have not written a word where there was concern for Medvedev. When I mentioned him, like his position, I wrote this in relation to the word "Russia".

Quote: bayard

According to which all of Russia is not just ready to trample ... at the wake, all button accordions would be torn.

What do I have to do with it? Not all, but a kind of herd, quite large, but not at all clever. I do not want to go with him. Yes, I also do not have respect for him, in many respects the opponent of his actions. But I know how it works, but those who are ready to trample on the funeral wake do not.
As soon as the USSR collapsed, a capitalist state was formed in our country. And you understand this and in some questions you reason correctly from this point of view. But for some reason everything is upside down. In a capitalist state, what is the ruling class? So whose interests should the same prime minister watch out for? This is not a question of how we would like it, but how it works. About the pension reform is a question not only of the prime minister, but also of his government; they were also supported by the majority of the people's representatives. And they were chosen by the same people, ready to trample. But everything turns out to be even more complicated. Regarding the reform, everywhere they talked about its need, about how the accumulation of the pension fund is going and all that. And they didn't lie! They spoke the truth, no matter how unpleasant it was. But were there any alternative ways and possibilities, were they worked out and was there a choice between them and what was accepted? That's the question. But that's okay, that's not what we're talking about. And what about where all these people, ready to stomp out, were when it was necessary to protest and defend their rights? There were so-called "oppositionists" - scoundrels who use the pretext to promote their ideas, although before that they themselves were advocating an increase in the retirement age. And where were the people's representatives and the people? This is the paradox. They are ready to trample, to rejoice at the commemoration, and to go out simply to say that they do not agree are not ready. They are not ready to defend their rights and their children. You know, as I said, I will not join this crowd, I do not like hypocrisy.

Quote: bayard

For judging by the profile picture

And I have a special avatar, when they can’t get to the bottom of me, let them get to the bottom of the profile picture. And it works the same. :)
What avatar should I have? Some kind of heroic or some kind of exalted? And I do not need an avatar to compensate for something there.

Quote: bayard

For judging by the profile picture, I would rather be inclined about your citizenship to a certain country neighboring Russia, which is several kilometers from me — behind the front line.

Or maybe I have not only an avatar like that, maybe my face is too thick, my beard is not according to the charter, my eyebrows are not plucked? Maybe I need to measure with a vernier caliper, suddenly it’s not quite Aryan. Doesn’t resemble anything?

Quote: bayard

A very strange impression of your stormy activity today.

And when you read my posts - you understand what I want to say. I try not to support unreasonable cliches. And if the person whom I support in something does something wrong, in my opinion, then I say that. If I support our president, this does not mean that I agree with everything. And in many events, I do not think that a switchman is needed - the goal of popular anger. First of all, you need to blame yourself. Because we are involved in many things, we just do not want to recognize this. And I leave room for doubt, because I can be wrong, I can not understand. Is this a weakness? probably.

[Zaurbek]

Moreover, the conceptual nature. Why and resumed work on the gun for him 152 caliber

I read that all the talk about 152mm on the T-14 is the installation of a 152mm howitzer barrel for the assault version of the tank.

[bayard]

Quote: Zaurbek

I read that all the talk about 152mm on the T-14 is the installation of a 152mm howitzer barrel for the assault version of the tank.

These are variations and suggestions. They offered a rifled barrel from the "Coalition", a barrel from a T-95 (specially designed for it, smooth-bore, to design from scratch, since the previous developments and equipment were lost ... It is known that they are just working on this, but we will see what happens. Hopefully.

[Zaurbek]

The point is that you can put a 152 rifled into the existing building, but the 152mm smoothbore and its AZ with its 152mm BOPS are no longer there. And what is the difference between technology 125mm guns and 152mm? Now the problems with 125mm 2A82 are in the part of metallurgists. But such weapons were not made during the USSR. NATO switched to such guns in the 2000s. ours are trying now. Therefore, the 152mm smoothbore gun must also be rethought.

[vladcub]

"more powerful trolley for other equipment" relative to the universal trolley so far, things do not go beyond samples in the future. Could it be that while the funds are found, while that, for now, and the project is outdated?

[Strashila]

"Object 195" has been created since 1988 ", which makes it difficult to redesign the project based on the achievements of 2019. Armata is good, considering that it used the T-95 developments. But the army needs a certain amount of a tank with heavier weapons, like the T-34 and IS-2 in the old days. It is clear that 152 mm will have less ammunition, and there will be much more power.

[Karabas]

It is clear that 152 mm will have less ammunition, and will have much more power.

So what is less? Ammunition will be brought up. A stumbling block for many. If the war is serious, most of the tanks will be destroyed before they start to move, not just at least once. And if you use it in Syria, then this is a sniper rifle, and a 152mm gun is so that it immediately puts the house down.

[bayard]

Is there less ammunition in comparison with the T-14 or the T-90?
T-95 of dimension like T-14 and much larger T-90, so the difference in ammunition will not be so great.
The same IS-2 in WWII was not a tank for anti-tank combat, but a breakthrough tank. His powerful weapon crushed enemy pillboxes and bunkers, the capital buildings in which the firing points were located, broke through the enemy's defensive lines. This should be the role of the T-95 or T-14 with 152 mm. gun, on which they are now working again. This is a BREAKTHROUGH tank. Tank, abbr

[Red_Baron]

Breakthrough tank? What are your fantasies based on? For some reason, in ALL countries producing tank guns they think, they try to test large-caliber guns than they are now used to penetrate other tanks in the first place. Even at VO there was an article about this and not one. In what century do you live, why do developers have some aspirations, and you have others. What are bunkers, bunkers, buildings? They are primarily attacked by aircraft. Not only that, even a Tiger-type armored fighting vehicle can launch a 152mm rocket, including a concrete-piercing one, and from a distance such that there will be nothing for DotA to answer, and even find the launch site.
Breakthrough tank ...

[bayard]

Quote: Red_Baron

Not only that, even a Tiger-type armored fighting vehicle can launch a 152mm rocket, including a concrete-piercing one, and from a distance such that there will be nothing to answer to the bunker, and even find the launch site

Well, you yourself answered your own question. It was the same in WWII - anti-tank artillery fought with tanks, and only in extreme cases - tanks themselves. Now this separation of functionality is much more pronounced - at times.
A tank is a means of breaking through enemy defenses and supporting attacking infantry. And let anti-tank defense be done by ATGM calculations - there are many of them and these are their tasks.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

Now this separation of functionality is much more pronounced - at times.

Quote: bayard

A tank is a means of breaking through enemy defenses and supporting attacking infantry.

But how does this contradict the fact that the enemy’s defense or its attacking forces basically have tanks? And the tank will have to fight against them. For example, American tanks, like even HE shells, until recently did not have, and even now they have quite specific ones.

Quote: bayard

And let anti-tank defense be done by ATGM calculations - there are many of them and these are their tasks.

Since in conflicts everything turns out the old fashioned way. Look American fighting is an armada of tanks, Israeli - exactly the same tank confrontation tanks. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, it is precisely the anti-tank anti-tank systems that are gaining momentum.

[bayard]

Quote: Red_Baron

But how does this contradict the fact that the enemy’s defense or its attacking forces basically have tanks? And the tank will have to fight against them.

It does not contradict in any way. Our tanks have always been created for the anti-tank battle and were always ready for it. Our opponents have always had many tanks. But we have more. Our tanks were supposed to tear the enemy’s defenses and develop success. Tactics and strategy were attacking. So it was for the European theater.
The United States and Germany created their tanks on the contrary - to fight our tanks. That is, tanks - as an anti-tank weapon. Hence the increased attention to security (often overweight), and ammunition mainly from anti-tank ammunition.
They practically continued the ideology of the Wehrmacht with their "Tiger", which was created specifically to fight tanks.
Our IS-2, on the contrary, was the BREAKTHROUGH tank. His most powerful weapon was to destroy enemy firing points, destroy pillboxes and buildings. But in an anti-tank battle ... the rate of fire was extremely low - separate loading.

I am writing from Donetsk and over the years have seen enough of the effect of the impact of a high explosive 125 mm. shell and high-explosive fragmentation of the same 152 caliber.
It is heaven and earth. Where the 125th makes a hole in the wall (up to a meter in diameter) and at best makes a couple of light partitions, the 152nd caves in a whole staircase. Having the ability to fire such a direct-fire caliber, any defense is afflicted. And about the anti-tank capabilities of ammunition of this caliber, it is quite well stated in this article and a number of comments on it.
Therefore, such a tank, with such a gun will allow for a qualitative breakthrough in the combat capabilities of the tank forces of the Russian Federation. The costs of its creation will be justified, and the interaction in the same battle formations with the previous generation MBT will give flexibility and overwhelming power to the tank units in future wars.
And "Armata" with 125 mm. this will not be able to provide. Not even close.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

They practically continued the ideology of the Wehrmacht with their "Tiger", which was created specifically to fight tanks.
Our IS-2, on the contrary, was the BREAKTHROUGH tank. His most powerful weapon was to destroy enemy firing points, destroy pillboxes and buildings. But in an anti-tank battle ... the rate of fire was extremely low - separate loading.

But now our tanks are not really breakthrough tanks, these are just tanks, with such cannons, quick-firing with enough penetration, with the ability to attack from far away. It is not extremely powerful to crush, but to release many shells in response to the same shelling.

Quote: bayard

I am writing from Donetsk and over the years have seen enough of the effect of the impact of a high explosive 125 mm. shell and high-explosive fragmentation of the same 152 caliber.

Quote: bayard

And "Armata" with 125 mm. this will not be able to provide. Not even close.

That's all, I understand you.
That is, conversations that the T-95 is better or that Armata is worse, did you mean their guns? But this is a completely different issue.
I personally do not mind tanks with such cannons, but why should it not be Almaty?
But my opinion, ideally the main part with the usual 125-caliber quick-firing guns for us. And part of it is a breakthrough or something else with powerful 152 mm guns.
I actually argued about the tanks themselves. Their guns, in my opinion, are second. Because it was a question and development is still going on installing 152mm on Armata.

[bayard]

It was the 152-caliber gun that ensured the overwhelming superiority of the T-95 over any enemy tanks for any prospect. Therefore, both the article and mine speak about the fact that without returning to this caliber, one cannot achieve such overwhelming superiority.
Nobody is proposing today to return to the T-95 project - it is impossible. There is already a fairly mature platform "Armata", on it and sculpt the weapon, which was previously developed for the T-95.
By the way, in terms of ergonomics, the layout of the T-95 - the crew in the hull, below the level of the turret ring, but turns / rotates with the turret, today many seem more rational. Not in terms of security (here "Armata" is on top), but in terms of ease of combat - the crew turns towards the enemy, which is firing at. + The reliability of data transmission channels from a rotating tower to a stationary capsule raises questions.
The situation when I face the enemy and fight with him is more rational and convenient than when I sit in a motionless capsule and play computer war on the screen. This is what people who are involved in the T-14 test say. That is why so often they began to remember the T-95, where these problems did not smell. But the security was high. There were also proposals in the "Armata" corps to repeat the layout of the T-95 and to solve all these inconveniences at once.
In previous publications on this subject and comments on them, these questions have been raised repeatedly and revealed in the comments of the people involved.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: bayard

This should be the role of the T-95 or T-14 with 152 mm. gun, on which they are now working again. This is a BREAKTHROUGH tank.

I agree! There was no point in creating a new tank with an old cannon.

[bayard]

It was a rash and reckless decision - to use the backlog of a new breakthrough tank to create ... a large tank with a conventional caliber cannon. Say then it will be possible to use old ammunition, of which Soviet industry produced just a huge amount.
Now they bite their elbows with an urgently sculpted version of the T-14 with a gun corresponding to its size and tasks.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

It was a rash and reckless decision - to use the backlog of a new breakthrough tank to create ... a large tank with a conventional caliber cannon. Say then it will be possible to use old ammunition, of which Soviet industry produced just a huge amount.
Now they bite their elbows with an urgently sculpted version of the T-14 with a gun corresponding to its size and tasks.

I can not agree. Despite the gun of a similar caliber, it is not the same. And the machine is new to her. Which allows the use of longer ammunition. And the cannon itself, by a few percent, now I won’t say it can withstand a lot of pressure in the barrel, which allows the use of ammunition with great power.
Old ammunition is no good at all now, only PFs are possible and the like. All the others then were only developments and are being released now. And I don’t know the latest type Lead 2 even as it is now with their release.
So they definitely could not focus on old ammunition, they have long been no longer relevant in their characteristics.

[bayard]

Yes, I know about longer ammunition. I just remember when the decision was made on the caliber of the "Armata", in my opinion the then commander-in-chief of armored vehicles spoke out that it was very expensive to make a line of completely new ammunition for a completely new caliber, so a decision was made about 125 mm. caliber, but with a cannon of greater power, which can also use old ammunition, of which there are infinitely many. Then, over time, all this began to be revised - first, new ammunition for the 125th caliber, and then they remembered about the 152nd and started talking ... And everything returned to normal, but with much greater costs. As one wise general said to the then commander-in-chief (regarding the choice of the "Armata" concept: "You will be imprisoned!" And indeed - after a little over a year he was fired from service, although he was not imprisoned ...
And new tanks in the troops did not appear during this time (from this year they will go little by little, but so far only with 125 mm.).

[Red_Baron]

And if a similar gun is installed on Armata? Perhaps with a modified tower?
I honestly do not understand why the argument is about technology, if the majority speaks only of a gun?
I understand that if it weren’t fundamentally possible for Armata to install another gun. Then there would be a completely different question.

[bayard]

Quote: Red_Baron

And if a similar gun is installed on Armata?

Will definitely be installed.

Quote: Red_Baron

I honestly do not understand why the argument is about technology, if the majority speaks only of a gun?

Because now it became obvious that this whole circus with a new platform, etc. was almost a waste of time and quite a lot of money - everything returned to normal - a seven-roller platform, a six-inch cannon, increased security ... Now they even offer it in the building " Armata "repeat the lineup of the T-95 because it is more rational from the point of view of the convenience of fighting. And almost equal in terms of the security of the crew. They talk about this quite seriously. It turned out to be not very convenient to fight from the capsule and the transfer of data from the rotating turret to the capsule and vice versa is not entirely reliable - in battle it is fraught.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: bayard

From the capsule it turned out to be not very convenient to conduct a battle and the data transfer from the rotating tower to the capsule and vice versa is not quite reliable - in battle this is fraught.

This is just not a problem; you just have to work with it. Now almost all modern equipment has a DBM and an operator's place. And the uninhabited tower is roughly its counterpart.

Quote: bayard

Now they even suggest in the "Armata" corps to repeat the lineup of the T-95 because it is more rational from the point of view of the convenience of fighting.

I repeat, until the T-95 is released, tests were conducted with it, I would not say anything in advance. And some changes in layout according to operating experience - why not. Or bringing an existing one.

[bayard]

Three copies of the T-95 went through a full cycle of factory tests, traveled thousands of kilometers across all types of landscape, fired at 2 cannon shots. It remains to conduct state tests. For this, it was necessary to collect the fourth sample. The money for this remained in the budget of the program, and there was enough money to hold the states themselves. But the command came - to curtail the program. Apparently on the recommendation of our potential partners. They tracked the progress of the tests and saw that if Russia got such a tank, they would have to change the entire fleet of their armored vehicles, open R&D, catch up ... and it’s not a fact that they would even be able to catch up. Therefore, they asked to close the program, and if you wanted a big tank, buy a Leopard from the Germans and rejoice.
This is not a unique case. So at the "request of" new "friends" a lot of programs were closed, production facilities were destroyed and competencies were lost ... IL-96, NK-93 aircraft engine, "Energia-Buran" program ...
So the T-95 was built in hardware, tested and completely finished ... and there are prototypes left to look at. It's just that the T-95 was originally created as a breakthrough tank for 152 mm. gun. And the T-14 is like a "castrated" replica - a simpler gun, at a cheaper price and must be designed from scratch (which affected the price and timing.
That is why the old generals said to the young young reformers in uniform and without - "You still have to return to the T-95 concept. Sooner or later. But time will be lost." It turned out exactly like that. And now everyone began to remember the T-95 - a tank of lost capabilities.

[bandabas]

Hmmm. And what did the troops get from the new platform?

[bistrov.]

Quote: bandabas

And what did the troops get from the new platform?

Twenty, plus 100 units ordered. In production.

[TARSUS]

Dreams. Dreams.

[Zaurbek]

It seems to me that larger calibers are no longer needed in PT operations. If you compare even with the not the most modern ATGM Cornet, then ATGM is already cheaper than increasing the caliber to 152mm and the benefits received from it. Moreover, the SLA and the shell itself. But the penetration rate of the cumulative and the effect of the RP missile is no worse.

[Pavel57]

As soon as the Germans or the French put the gun 130-140 mm, the question immediately arises about 152mm.

[maidan.izrailovich]

Not very likely. In NATO countries, the Anglo-Saxons define the concept of war. And for those, everything is focused on air supremacy and massive missile attacks. Therefore, the armored component is not in the first roles in NATO forces.

[Red_Baron]

Well, for example, one of the options for upgrading Abrams includes a 140 mm perspective gun.
So what they think about it. And at least not in the first roles. But this is the most important component. For this, countries spend a lot of money on the modernization of their armored fleet, the purchase and construction of new ones.

[garri-lin]

Tanks for the eyes 125mm. It’s not necessary to increase the caliber of the cannon but to put ATGMs on the tank, ohhh very cool ATGMs. For rare collisions with enemy tanks. Well, perfect the shell for the gun. Which OF. It is also desirable to have an assault self-propelled gun with a stronger gun than tanks on tanks. But a little. And the gun is not necessarily high-pulse.

[Red_Baron]

This is a moot point. About how and what is more relevant than 125 or 152. Today I read completely wild people, in whom the t-95 is almost released and worse than the Death Star.
It’s just that now the funds against anti-tank systems are gaining more relevance.
A tank shell moving with great speed, and even having a huge supply of energy to shoot down is much more difficult. At the expense of the assault guns at the existing base - completely. Somewhere I heard that something like this and wanted to do. Some part when solving all issues with a 152mm gun to release only part of the production.

[garri-lin]

KAZ and against BOPS are taught to work. Will be taught soon. But in ATGM you can cram a means of overcoming the kaz. It is difficult to compensate for the return of a 152 mm gun. It is possible but difficult. Overweight tank is not needed. 125 mm plus a good ATGM optimally. Missiles have another plus. The defeat is out of line of sight. UAV will come to the tanks soon. According to him, it is possible to hit with missiles and a cannon is difficult.

[Red_Baron]

The question is so controversial that I can not say anything. Your arguments are correct in my opinion. The whole question is when it will be more effective.

[garri-lin]

That which is cheaper. And that means massive. Plus, Russia needs a new ATGM. It is necessary to immediately make the 4th generation. Both for tanks and for helicopters and infantry, both the manual version and the light chassis. Not even an ATGM but a battlefield ur. Modular and multifunctional.

[Red_Baron]

It depends on how you consider cheapness. Installation? Services? BC? Opportunities?
We have a fairly large range of UR. And one new one is not enough, I guess. One universal is easier. But it may turn out to be more expensive or less promising. Also the difference in caliber. It makes no sense to do the same for 125 and 152mm.
The cheapest, perhaps, is artillery, for which they give a tip, which quickly takes a position, shoots back and leaves. Or from a great distance the square covers very tightly, then you can not leave. By the way, in the exercises, right now, what’s going on, I saw the transportation of guns by helicopters in the American manner.

[garri-lin]

Artillery will always have to leave. Counter-batteries can work whenever you want, so you have to leave. Guns used to be carried by helicopters before, in the mountains for sure. And on the rocket, if you take the intermediate version, then you need for 125mm, to launch through the barrel, make a smart rocket with a high flight altitude and an attack from above. But this is an interim solution. Even the modern KAZ can be modified against the kobeboev. And through the barrel, a pair start-up is impossible. Adding vertical launchers to the tank in the stern would be the best solution. No caliber restrictions.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: garri-lin

Adding vertical launchers to the tank in the stern would be the best solution. No caliber restrictions.

I would not look so far. It is unlikely that the design of the tanks will allow this without significant revisions. And how much will it be in demand in the future? Perhaps this will be the destiny of other means, not a tank. By the way, you kind of wrote about the blinding of an HE tank with a shell, which prevents it from sending an ATGM after 8-9 seconds?

[garri-lin]

It will be effective in a short distance. At a distance at which KOF will hit the enemy tank. And I would like to have a long arm with the possibility of overcoming KAZ. By the way, vertical launchers were waiting on Armata.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: garri-lin

And I would like to have a long arm with the possibility of overcoming KAZ.

It seems to me even now that this is the fate of special carriers, such as Chrysanthemums or helicopters.

Quote: garri-lin

By the way, vertical launchers were waiting on Armata.

This would negate all the advantages of a more spacious case and at the same time great opportunities.

[garri-lin]

I completely agree with the concept of a tank with a tank should be encountered in battle as little as possible. A narrow specialist like Chrysanthemum will always be more effective in its business than a tank wagon. But the tank can be equipped with similar weapons. Low probability of use, small ammunition. The Navy has long come to the vertical, universal PU. It’s time to introduce them in tanks. The safest place is the hull feed. 6-8 PU with a diameter of 200 mm and a length of 1,5 meters will not greatly add dimensions and weight. Book from 12,7 BB and shards. Also not a lot of weight. 2 pairs of ATGMs and two to four kamikaze UAVs. The functionality of the tank will expand significantly. Plus, if Armata goes to the troops as a Commander’s tank, then such a lineup will be even more convenient.

[D16]

And they (anti-tank with vertical launch) exist in nature? After all, they will cost as naval .

[garri-lin]

In nature, they do not exist. Like 100 years ago, there were no ordinary ones. It is necessary to work and everything will be. And the price is still unknown. The next generation ATGM will in any case be expensive.

[D16]

Much that did not exist a hundred years ago and now belongs to the category: "This was not, no, and it is not necessary" .

[garri-lin]

Bow and arrow to help you in case of war.

[D16]

Bow and arrow to help you in case of war

Throwing a rocket up will greatly unmask the tank’s position. Not to mention the cost of the rocket itself. At least it will be a completely different level, even compared to Jewelin.

[garri-lin]

And a missile shot through the barrel does not unmask the position of tan4a? And why should a vertical launch greatly increase the cost of a rocket? What is the reason for this?

[D16]

Far less.

vertical start should greatly increase the cost of the rocket? What is the reason for this?

With the logic of use.

[garri-lin]

A shot from a gun is detected from several kilometers by flash in difficult weather conditions and with strong smoke. What can a vertically launched rocket do here? Everyone sees it all.
And the logic of use shows the need to overcome KAZ. And not only existing but also promising. A missile needs more to stay effective. Where can the tank be installed at the tank without re-arrangement? So that they were also protected. Or shoot a gun (just kidding) or make armored cells on a turret. And this is the weight. Optimally behind the stern.

[D16]

And a missile shot through the barrel does not unmask the position of tan4a?

A rocket shot through the barrel is made with a reduced charge, you can say it is shoved out through the barrel with a hand almost . Accordingly, the unmasking effects are less than from a conventional shot. The reflex rocket is subsonic and throughout the flight the height may not exceed the height of the target. And even completely hide behind the screen of the area. Unlike the vertical launch, which will be detected by visual and radar means.

And why should a vertical launch cost rockets so much?

Let's bend your fingers:
1. Engines of the rocket declination system.
2. Autopilot.
3. Autopilot programming system. He needs to give the radar or infrared portrait of the target and the intended place where it will be at the moment of switching on its AGSN for additional search. Do not forget that the goal is moving and not very predictable. So radio correction is needed.
4. Actually AGSN.
Thus, the price of such an ATGM will be higher than the price of the TOP missile and comparable to the price of 9M100. Not to mention the increase in the cost of the tank itself, on board which a similar complex can be placed.
Reflex does not need anything of the above, which, by the way, makes it extremely noise-resistant.

[garri-lin]

Let's start with the points: modern technology detects a shot from RPG 7. Infrared, ultraviolet sensors. So no matter what to shoot from. They will see. A tank on the battlefield is just a noticeable thing. Visually detecting a moving tank is no problem and a stationary tank on the battlefield is a corpse.
Now on the rocket. Declination engine, impulse thing by no means expensive. And in size as a cartridge for Makarov. Autopilot. Autopilot autopilot discord. Yes, it is needed but not necessarily cool. The direction to the goal is the main thing to support. GSN Everything is complicated here. We are talking about a new generation of ATGM systems with advanced functionality. In principle, LGSN from the same reflex will work great. But it is simply not enough. Need a combined GOS with a TV channel. Expensive. But effective in any case, the tank is not an inexpensive target. And such missiles will be rarely used. The tank is becoming a difficult target. KAZ. Armor Network-centricity. And there are plenty of factors. If you want to, but fighting tanks becomes an expensive pleasure. The price will be more expensive but not critical.

[D16]

Let's start.

modern technology detects a shot from an RPG 7

I'll spot it too. The only question is distance, conditions (weather, dust, smoke). RPG-7 further than 400 meters and there is no need to pinpoint.

Infrared, ultraviolet sensors.

Maybe these sensors are on the latest versions of armored vehicles, but I have not seen them. In any case, the vast majority of army equipment is not there. And where there is a question arises about the conditions of detection and distance.

Declination engine, impulse thing by no means expensive.

You are directly holy naivety. Made in a circle of young technicians may not be expensive, And if the defense industry of any self-respecting power takes up the matter, the situation will change dramatically. The same goes for autopilot.

In principle, LGSN from the same reflex will work great. But it is simply not enough.

About how many wonderful discoveries we have ... How can that which does not exist and never has worked wonderfully? You should at least look at Wikipedia.

Expensive. But effective in any case, the tank is not an inexpensive target. And such missiles will be rarely used.

These missiles will be used for anything. Just like the shells of Thor and Thor in Khmeimim they shoot down Barmalean UAVs assembled from shit and sticks. But these missiles are much cheaper than what you offer.

The tank is becoming a difficult target. KAZ. Armor Network-centricity. And there are plenty of factors.

Blah blah blah. An air blast of a high-explosive shell in front of a tank is guaranteed to put it out of action along with KAZ, network-centricity, sights and other UV stray. After that you can shoot him even from a fly. Almost free.

[garri-lin]

You just read the gist of the conversation before you get in? Talk about the next generation of tanks and guided weapons on them. If this is not clear the first time, read it again. On modern machines, there are plenty of sensors on the battlefield. On promising will be many times more. The detection range is already sufficient. In perspective it gets better and better.
One can argue a lot about the military-industrial complex. Depends on the approach of the state. You can also buy soldier spoons for 400 euros. And you can rearm the army on the latest technology. With such arguments, it is better to just do nothing. Since the military-industrial complex is so fierce.
With LGSN not so expressed. All the same, Sunday morning. But they could not dig into the words and understand what was meant. The start method is not limited to control on the path. The method used on Reflex can be adapted without any problems.
Your statement that rockets will be fired at just about anything is meaningless. Each ammunition has its own target. And the example with Shells and Torah is absurd. The cost of an air defense missile is not compared to the price of its target. And with the cost of damage that that "Penny UAV" could inflict.
Air blasting of HE shell for incapacitating a tank body kit is possible at what distance? 2 km is already a success. You still have to get there. And again, we are talking about a long arm. But you missed it.

[D16]

But they could not dig into the words and understand what was meant. The start method is not limited to control on the path. The method used on Reflex can be adapted without any problems.

Reflex has no homing at all. It is guided by the beam from the range finder. And if you want to adapt its guidance method for your imaginary perspective ATGM, then why do we need a multi-channel GOS? That is, the missile turns out to be absolutely stupid, without declination engines and mortar launch, a big restriction on the minimum range, but relatively cheap. In order to introduce it from the start into the information field of the beam, you need to make a control device that can shine up.

Air blasting of HE shell for incapacitating a tank body kit is possible at what distance? 2 km is already a success. You still have to get there.

It’s just not necessary to hit. It is enough to cover with a fragmentation field. It is also possible to give a command for the OFS air bombing by a signal from the same Reflex guidance device. Such a fuse is already implemented in 57mm caliber. Well, like a cherry on the cake, the question is:
"Why do we need an ATGM at all?"
If the current element base allows electronics to survive a shot from it with a high-ballistic gun, then making a UAS in a caliber of 125mm for a smooth barrel is much easier than 57mm for Derivation. Thus, each high-explosive projectile turns into a controlled one, the speed of which no ATGM can even dream of at the same range. And note that all this is for relatively small money, since the necessary equipment is already on the tank. It will only have to be modernized. The projectile will be cheaper than the same Krasnopol as there is not even a semi-active homing. This is really an effective and not expensive way to increase the effectiveness of promising and existing armored vehicles without any heap of vertical launchers and missiles, at the price of the coolest air defense of small radius.

[garri-lin]

And again you prove that you are not a reader but a writer. How was it with me? You can have a PDA from Reflex, but this is not enough and you need a good seeker. But you certainly didn’t read it. The minus of Reflex and the like is the impossibility of working outside the line of sight. And the situation is brewing when this minus becomes significant.
On OF write nonsense. What is the radius of continuous destruction by fragments of a 125mm shell? Ten meters? So that the slush from the tank body kit undermining should be very close. Almost a direct hit. At close range, yes. But then it’s easier to shoot BOPSOM. And at a great distance? 3km? 5 km? Will you get? Of course not. The rest of your thoughts are nonsense. A shell with smart stuffing is expensive. A filling capable of withstanding overload when fired is an expensive pleasure. Rethink your concept by resigning to this fact.

[D16]

You can have a PDA from Reflex, but this is not enough and you need a good seeker.

It is impossible. Either one or the other. in Reflex, by virtue of the guidance method, the engine with steering cars is located in front and a through channel passes through it for the passage of the cumulative jet. To develop a combined head with a channel along the IMHO axis beyond the boundary of good and evil.

And at a great distance? 3km? 5 km? Will you get?

Uasom? Of course I will. Moreover, it is not necessary to seek a direct hit.

A shell with smart stuffing is expensive. A filling capable of withstanding overload when fired is an expensive pleasure.

Compared to your fabrications, mere pennies. Does Krasnopol have a smart enough filling? I would say too smart and expensive. The guidance function for the reflection from the LL target for the UAE is redundant. For derivation, such a projectile is being developed for working on drones and TSA.

The minus of Reflex and the like is the impossibility of working outside the line of sight.

For the war with the Papuans, Krasnopol is quite enough. As a serious adversary, your drone scout will still be noticed and appropriate measures taken.

[garri-lin]

Well, you have already agreed that you need a good seeker. Already progress. The price will grow, but efficiency will be added.
About hitting a projectile at a distance of 5 km is certainly fun. Specify how your UAS will be induced.
My inventions of the PDA are universal. When creating, no one is limited by anything. Neither the caliber of the gun is not the size of the ammo rack cell. The aiming method can be any. Including the one used on the Rkflex. By the way, there is no need to shine up. A primitive autopilot will launch the rocket on the "path" in a split second. Control can be at least inertial at the initial stage, even radio command. That's not the point. It is ideal to build a whole line of ammunition with different targeting methods for different conditions and different opponents.
UAVs are shot down. Have you heard about the concept of "fired / aimed / struck"? Drone kamikaze.

[D16]

Well, you have already agreed that you need a good seeker. Already progress. The price will grow, but efficiency will be added.

And I'm a writer, not a reader

[garri-lin]

Exactly. Because I originally wrote about multivariance. And you dragged "combined, with a channel, beyond good and evil." You need cheaper, adapt what you have. For greater efficiency, do 5th, one step better.

[D16]

I wrote to you that Reflex and AGSN are not compatible in principle. You stubbornly want to cross a snake with a hedgehog.

[D16]

If there is an autopilot, ANN and AGSN, then why do we need a trail? The entire set listed will already draw on the price of 9M100.

Specify how your UAS will be induced.

By LL. A bit like a rocket from Reflex. Just a shot will be fired at full charge with the corresponding initial speed, unlike. Kamikaze drones will shoot down and jam in the same way. They generally have no homing. Only telecontrol.

[garri-lin]

And you did not try not to shove possible electronics into one ammunition, but to think about a ruler with different fillings. More expensive, cheaper, dolobny and for close distances, anti-tank and anti-bunker. A family of missiles with different capabilities and at different prices. I cannot explain this to you for the second day. And you all want to ascribe to me a hedgehog.

[D16]

The method used on Reflex can be adapted without any problems.

Here is your suggestion about a hedgehog and a snake.
I'm not going to shove anything. This is done by specially trained people. Than to produce a zoo, it is better to focus on the development and mass production of something more or less universal, different in type of military unit, and not in guidance methods. For example, the same UAS can be both OF, and fragmentation-cumulative. For work on lighter armored vehicles than MBT. Or use them to finish off already damaged tanks. Or shrapnel, to work on infantry and unarmored vehicles.

[garri-lin]

The method used on Reflex. That is Bish Trail. Can be used as desired with any rocket architecture. You don't need to take the whole Invar for this. It is enough to take the used equipment for transmitting information from the sight to the rocket. And that's all. Concerning the GOS, it's cheap and angry. But it has a number of disadvantages. And to work under conditions when the "path" is unacceptable, send the same missile but with the seeker. Yes, more expensive but more effective, long-range and many more advantages. And the modularity of missiles will reduce the price. And you did not answer how your UAS will be guided. Specifically.

[D16]

The method applied on the reflex can only work with architecture applied on the reflex, cornet and other ATGMs with beam guidance. LL receiver at the rear, b / h, engine with steering gears in front. To form a cumulative jet, the tunnel along the axis through the engine and, accordingly, the GOS invented by you. Which is to say the least problematic. With radio command guidance, it is theoretically possible, but where are our tanks, and where is radio command guidance?

[garri-lin]

If the rocket is not limited by the caliber of the barrel through which it will be launched, then the options for the location of the receiver immediately become several, for example, on the "wings" which Invar does not have, but on other missiles they are. And voila, a classic lineup is available with an engine in the stern and a warhead in the bow.

[D16]

Only tracers were placed on the wings. Cornet is also not limited to the caliber of the barrel, but you are. The reflex pattern is used one to one. Probably not thought of .

[D16]

You did not answer how your UAS will be induced. Specifically

Specifically for LL. Also, Coca Reflex. Only a beam-controlled fuse for remote detonation will be added. But naturally, on a modern elemental base.

[garri-lin]

Tobish your method will not work in opposition. LL will not be able to command an explosion through the aerosol cloud and the PF will safely fly off to nowhere. And by the way. If there is a Reflex then why is your PF with the same control? Multiply identical entities? And the range will not increase. And govopya in Russian the same eggs only in profile. The tank needs a multi-functional rocket and don't argue. A reinforcement of armor and KAZ impose certain requirements. A larger caliber and means of overcoming KAZ are welcome.

[D16]

So yes, but it can be undermined when the signal disappears AND OFS will work successfully. In addition, in order for the cloud to appear, you need to irradiate the target with a rangefinder. And you can not irradiate. Irradiate, for example, any object nearby, and translate the signal to the target in the last couple of seconds. Reflex has this mode of operation.

If there is a Reflex then why is your PF with the same control?

The projectile is three times quicker, respectively, the target has less chance of counteraction. Well, and KAZ undermining in advance OFS on the drum. In general, accuracy is a useful thing.

[garri-lin]

For Reflex, this is the main mode. Volume and essence of the "path". And about the fact that the projectile is quicker is good. But the load on the filling will also be greater. Factor of. And such an HE will cost more than Reflex. Because of the filling. And they are no different. And then the second question arises. OF demolishes the body kit and then finishes the cumul. The time difference in the shot is 10 seconds. Given the lower speed of the rocket, how many seconds will there be? That the enemy tank was doing a bullet all this time?

[D16]

such PF will cost more than Reflex. Because of the filling. And at the same time they are no different.

Will not be. At least due to the lack of an engine, a much cheaper and simpler b / h. I repeat, there is such an element base. The same Krasnopol is relatively not expensive. The space freed from the engine will be occupied by explosives with striking elements. Another difference will be that there is no reception against scrap. Neither KAZ, nor active armor, nor radiation warning sensors will help.

Time difference in a shot of 10 seconds

Yes. Loading time. The second time you can shoot cumulative-fragmentation UAS. The crew will only have time to fade. But he definitely will not continue to carry out the task Reflex becomes unnecessary.

[garri-lin]

You managed to justify the uselessness of any other shells other than HE. To myself. The troops think differently. In the military, it is as if oriented toward the fact that the enemy tank after the defeat does not slip away and burns down. And PF in this matter, as it were, not very. Especially at a short distance.

[D16]

You invented it for yourself. Scalp hunting is not a military task. If someone really wants to burn the enemy’s tank, then after a shower of fragments it will be much easier. Get what you get. ATGMs against the same cloak or arena will soon be nothing at all. Only through pair start from one direction. And then the card will fall.

[garri-lin]

Finally, you have come to the heart of the matter. Impossible through the barrel paired starts. From vertical PU in the stern of the tank. And if the first missile will contain means to overcome the KAZ, then the second will confidently hit the tank. Rzznitsa in time of approach to the goal is minimal. Finally.

[D16]

And I did not call Reflex a very modern complex. Moreover, I propose to abandon it in favor of things more promising, but also launched through the trunk, for which paired launches are not needed in principle. In addition, the pair launch is not a panacea at all, but a temporary advantage. It comes to the point that a salvo for a possible destruction of a tank will become more expensive than a tank . By the way, for the means of overcoming KAZ?

[garri-lin]

But with the means it is still not entirely clear. The most promising thing is to block the signal of the lacquer so that it was not possible to calculate the time of shooting the counter-ammunition. Aerosol cloud 30-40 meters from the tank. KAZ just doesn’t have time to hit the second missile. And your shells are nonsense. Against the tanks, they are pure ersatz. Their vocation as a sniper and machine gunners, well, even the parasites at the intersection. UAV can shoot down. Point priority goals. And it will be expensive. And your arguments about the low price are irrelevant and drawn out.

[D16]

And your shells are nonsense. Against the tanks, they are pure ersatz.

Likewise, cumulative rackets against normal equipment and a trained army do not shine with statistics. For the second Lebanese: "45 tanks were hit by ATGMs and RPG grenades, a total of 51 missiles hit the tanks.
In 24 cases (47% of the number of hits), the cumulative jet pierced the armor of tanks, apparently in 3 cases of these 24 ammunition detonated in the tanks. Tanks "Merkava", especially the newest Mk.4, showed excellent resistance to combat defeat. On average, 1 tanker was killed in each tank whose armor was pierced, and the ammunition load, apparently, detonated in only 3 tanks out of 24 punched. "Http://alpenforum.forum2x2.ru/t19549-topic
This is for the 370 tanks participating in operations
And then there was really no cloak. The effectiveness of the cumulative ammunition in modern tanks sank great. And what is the nonsense? Doubt that without breaking you can disable the tank? Some IS-2 really will not notice, and the new ones immediately in the rembat. If they don’t have time to burn.

[garri-lin]

The most sustainability record I heard of is 8 holes from cumulus. Chechnya Maybe bikes or maybe not. The tank was created to keep the blow. And then give change. No wonder he does it. Over the past 10 years, history has made another round. The armor of the tank is now in a better position than the shell. Now comes the development of weapons. Shells, missiles.

[D16]

That's just the joke that protection is being developed from the cumulative ammunition available to the Papuans. But rockets do not know how to do it differently. So what's the point of banging your head against the wall, increasing the caliber and weight of the b / h, blocking the leading b / h and twin starts, if you can disable the tank with much simpler and cheaper means?

[garri-lin]

100 years of the history of the use of tanks and the fight against them do not agree with you. To destroy the tank you need to break through the armor.

[D16]

What would destroy yes, that would disable no. Then destroy at least with red fields .. The tank will still not be able to respond to laser irradiation. And a six-inch present is guaranteed to kill him.
Missiles are best left to aviation. There are less restrictions on weight and size.

[garri-lin]

In aviation, there are fewer restrictions on weight and dimensions. You just do what reality do you live in? Tanchiki? Red Allen? Tetris? Well, you carry the sight of the tank with a close detonation of OF. So what? How do you then destroy it by the Krasnopoli? Why can’t it be destroyed by the red fields BEFORE the sight is damaged? Why make such a complex destruction system against a tank?

[D16]

You yourself claimed that modern and promising technology will be studded with sensors. It has already been pierced with laser irradiation now, and Krasnopol is aimed precisely at the reflection of LL. Together with the sight, they will also order a long life. The tank has everything you need to illuminate the target. Compare the weight and dimensions of the Whirlwind, Attack or a new universal missile with portable and tank ATGM missiles and then talk about realities.

[garri-lin]

And the fact that you can turn on target illumination in Krasnopol in the last seconds, have you forgotten? You are fencing a multi-level destruction system where one rocket has always dealt. In modern realities, you just need to give the rocket new opportunities. And there will be an effective, inexpensive tool. Universal. Your miracle shells will cost no less and the functionality will be much weaker. Around Invar with a thermal bar. The key difference between a rocket is its range. Twice as much. And only this decides a lot.

[D16]

How many of these "last" seconds does Krasnopol need to reliably aim at the target? Especially if the target is mobile? One and all. And they will not be, since the counteraction will begin immediately after the detection of radiation.

You are fencing a multi-level destruction system where one rocket has always dealt

I didn’t just give you the statistics of 2006. The number of missiles completed at the level of statistical error. And this is without active protection. And they shot everyone there. From RPG to Cornet. ATGMs work well against the Papuans on the T-54 and early T-72s. And as soon as a serious opponent meets everything. Sushi oars

[garri-lin]

Two seconds to defeat you satisfied? Moreover, to hit Krasnopol with a tank is your idea. I am fundamentally opposed. Unless of course this tank is in battle. For it will not lead to anything. Not before getting your snoring after. Tanchik stupidly leaves.
Statistics are good. And statistics say that they shoot cumulative tanks and consider it effective. Apparently not without reason. Since the tanks are burning from the cumulus perfectly. Youtube in your place. What 72 that 90 that Abrashi that leopash and carrots in one row. The latest landmines for tanks is Is 2 for tigers. Then it was effective.

[D16]

Me yes, but Krasnopol is not. Illumination of the target lasts from 5 to 12 seconds. That you with a daredevil-centimeter beguiled. They are only for fixed purposes. They shoot rockets with a godfather. b.h. because there is nothing else easily wearable and small in nature. By the way, a high-explosive 122 tiger’s forehead will not pierce, but the gearbox will definitely endure. Yes, and the crew pretty bad.

[garri-lin]

The latest version of Krasnopol also fits in 2 seconds on a fixed. And 15 seconds is nonsense. 15 seconds before the hit, the projectile will be still in the barrel.
About nothing else n5t in nature amused. Helfaer. Meveric. Lightweight.
By the way, a high-explosive 122mm tank will destroy it without hitting it. Wedge of a tower with shoulder strap deformation, barrel, transmissia. The entire filling will have to change and verify the geometry. And if the crew survives, they will have to heal for a long time.

[D16]

The latest version of Krasnopol also fits in 2 seconds on a fixed.

And if you are very lucky, then it can get without any backlight. True probability is near-zero . The head of Krasnopol detects the target at a distance of 2.5 km and begins to smoothly select the aiming error. The area of ​​control surfaces is small, and the piece of iron is heavy. If the projectile speed is approx. 500 m / s, then the time of controlled flight will be those same 5 seconds. When shooting at a moving target, it’s necessary to shine for 5 seconds. On a stationary one, everything depends not on the projectile, but on the aiming error. Why up to 12 sec. I do not know.

[garri-lin]

Do you really think that they will hit Krasnopol with a mobile tank? There is a shooting function on mobile equipment. I do not argue that. But why?????? destroy a tank behind enemy lines? Unmask an advanced gunner? Why I just shoot at the tank Krasnopol, I can not understand. There are ATGMs.

[D16]

Which gunner? Gunner in the tank. There is also a backlight station and network-centricity. . Krasnopol, I didn’t have time to dump it . You wrote that the difference in the speeds of the projectile and the ATGM is too great and the damaged tank will have time to dump. So faster and for sure. although it is possible to finish with controlled KO. But it can take a lot of time and shells. It all depends on the angle.

[garri-lin]

Tobish in your tank, being in direct line of sight from the enemy’s tank and having a 125 mm gun, should call up artillery support and synchronize it in seconds with its own shot with an HE projectile designed to damage the tank kit on the turret? Admit it sounds more than stupid. It reminds the transplantation of the tonsils to the place of appendicitis through a known place. It will be abruptly your cheap super-shells with mega-expensive stuffing. You made my evening.

[D16]

If your own pipe at such a distance does not help, then you can use the "call a friend" option .

[garri-lin]

Practice shows that a friend is often busy. After all, he has many friends and someone constantly calls him. Why would a tank that a priori self-sustaining attract artillery to hit a typical target? Add a couple of missiles to the tank and the target will be sprinkled with greater accuracy.

[D16]

In the tank there is no place for fast and powerful missiles, as well as all the associated corpses. And those that are, in the best case, spoil the skin. Otherwise, it will no longer be a tank, but a Jewish armored car with a launcher instead of a tower. They remember her from the M-60 did.

[garri-lin]

There is no space inside the tank. But outside abound. The safest place to feed. 6-8 tpc and armor is from a ton. Then play as you want. You want a simple and reliable Reflex redo in diameter twice as much. You want muti ptur 4 generations. With brains like the entire ISS.

[D16]

You only do not tell the tankers. They are any increase in the size of technology like a sickle in the balls. By the way, where are you planning to put the equipment from the launcher? In NLOS LS, it occupies a cell measuring 0.28x0.28x1.75 m. Really leave it outside?
The tank is the weapon of the battlefield. It shoots at what it sees. There are other means to work on targets outside the line of sight.

[garri-lin]

Increase in technology how much? And due to what? Dimensions of the armored hull or exterior, non-heavyweight body kit?
Nlos hp. Why did you remember this squalor? Zhps + IR. What did you think when you did? The equipment must be located inside. Better yet, the data on the missiles was transmitted from the standard sights of the tank.
The fact that the tank is a weapon of the battlefield I know. But on the battlefield there is such a thing as shelters. Work on hidden targets tank h5 prevent.

[D16]

A minimum of 30-40 centimeters.
Well, for themselves, the Jews made a similar complex, only shoots away EMNIP 50km and GPS or ANN + PALGS. Almost large Krasnopol
To suppress the shelters on the battlefield, and so what already there. MLRS with SPBE, artillery, aviation, tactical missile systems to choose from. Just give target designation. And you want to make a death star from a tank at any cost

[garri-lin]

40 centimeters most likely. Or 20 if 6 TPK in one row. Little.
Jews like Tomuz or something like that. If I do not bend 25 km and the rocket is three times cheaper. With the same filling. But there are no more heads there than varians. But very low speed.
There are enough goals on the battlefield for everyone. For some reason, URs were put in a tank in the union and are now mature in the west. The problem is that the main target for such missiles is the enemy’s armored vehicles. And the parameters of missiles for the defeat of heavily armored vehicles are already insufficient. We need to increase armor penetration, which means we need to increase the caliber of the rocket. You need to be able to start paired launches. We need a heavier missile with a longer range so that it can be farther away and bring the missile to a close intact from a different angle. It is possible to make a more rocket missile so that KAZ’s counter-ammunition could harm it. You won’t start all this through the trunk. Increase caliber? Why are the buckets for everyone else, and I will say more than the main goals, the caliber of the gun is optimal.

[D16]

However, I know about 12 seconds. When firing at maximum range, such will be the travel time of a controlled section of the trajectory at a speed of 208 m / s.

[garri-lin]

But if you do not highlight all the time, what will be the result? Or highlight 2 seconds at the beginning. When did the shell enter the controlled flight area?

[D16]

It all depends on the aiming error. She will have time to choose a shell in two seconds or not. But the error grows with increasing distance from the gun to the target.

[garri-lin]

You understand in shells. Not very radar. Sorry. In shells, too, do not understand. Well, at least you come up with complex combinations and absurd shells.

[D16]

In modern realities, you just need to give the rocket new opportunities. And there will be an effective, inexpensive tool. Universal.

What opportunities? What opportunities will allow her to overcome KAZ and Jewish armored air? Just do not offer to crush the millimeter range radars a couple of meters from the side of the tank. This is futile.
They will never be cheap either. The more "independent", the more expensive.

[garri-lin]

And what has no prospects in blocking mm range radar? What's wrong?

[D16]

The closer to the radiation source, the more power is needed. The power source on the rocket is more modest than the tank generator. Remember how an aircraft radar “burns through” the interference as it approaches its source. Here the opposite is true. The source of interference is approaching the radar. As you get closer, the effectiveness of the interference decreases.

[garri-lin]

Aerosol cloud with metal dust. The KAZ radar through it will not be able to track the second ammunition. Time to hit a second. The tank will not have time to move away and the rocket, changing the speed, will not be at the interception point at the moment of operation of the KAZ. Everything is very simple. No need EW need a simple screen.

[D16]

You have a very peculiar idea of ​​the work of KAZ.

The tank will not have time to move away and the rocket, changing the speed, will not be at the interception point at the moment of operation of the KAZ.

It's like that ? Press the brakes ? Or gas? A second of flight is 240-500 m, depending on the rocket. I remember the "rain" bakhalo almost on the armor. The grenades were extended from the hull lying on the tracked shelf and created a vertical fragmentation field. The sensors were fired at a distance of a meter from the armor. There was simply no need to detect the threat further. Now grenades began to shoot back in the direction of the incoming ammunition. But these are distances of 2-3 meters. The closer you are to the tank, the less chance you have to miss. And kill your infantry.

Everything is very simple. No need EW need a simple screen.

Why did you decide that these sawdust would work? You are going to pick up their size according to the wavelength?

[garri-lin]

And how do you imagine the work of KAZ? What can the radar see the canvas of which will be covered with metal dust? But the tank will not have time to move away for a simple reason. The time between missile approaches is scanty. A missile lead was taken in advance. The fact that the sensors were excited is good. Glad for them. The main thing is that the service is not affected.

[D16]

The fact that the sensors were excited is good. Glad for them. The main thing is that the service is not affected.

Since they were excited about the flying ammunition, it affected the service well, on the basis of which the Ukrainians made their Barrier. And Drozd became the first KAZ in the world to be adopted.

What can the radar see the canvas of which will be covered with metal dust?

I have no idea. Did not check. But for the sake of interest I will take an interest in traffic cops.

[garri-lin]

And where will you take metal dust?

[D16]

But for the sake of interest I will take an interest in traffic cops.

It's sarcasm.

[ty60]

the specific base will be like the SU-100. And in principle, 2s7 is quite enough for destruction. For defense-Msta-s in the caponier

[Red_Baron]

Oh, I hope it’s not so specific. A fairly modified tower :)

Quote: ty60

But in principle, 2s7 is enough for destruction. For defense-Msta-s in caponier

All for their own purposes. Somewhere Peony, somewhere more convenient with bombs, and somewhere Acacia is enough, since they seem to be going to modernize a few and make full use of them.

[Oleg (Kharkov)]

Quote: garri-lin

and put on the tank ATGM,

It was already.
Object 775, Object 287, Object 282

[garri-lin]

You do not confuse a rocket tank and a classic with a URO. Different things. The fact that the photo was reborn in Chrysanthemum. A chrysanthemum is cool. A classic tank with a URO in the army of the USSR and Russia has been in service for half a century. It’s just time to make the rocket perfect.

[Basarev]

Everything is simple. I read that Armata of all was the most conservative, most simplified and cheapest option. That is, the advantages of novelty were almost leveled. But it turned out that Armata was too complicated. These 20 cars (will they be?) Obviously will not do the weather. Are we going to drive a completely outdated T-72 until the end of time?

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Basarev

It's simple.

And you know, when you don’t understand anything, it’s always very simple. For children, for the most part, everything is black or white, or one extreme or the other - everything is very simple.

Quote: Basarev

I read that Armata of all was the most conservative, most simplified and cheapest option.

This does not always mean the worst. And if you have a desire to produce other machines on this platform, this may be the only acceptable option. Look at the same British on Challengers 2 developed new towers after the first, simpler ones, but they were able to hang additional reservations on them later.

Quote: Basarev

That is, the advantages of novelty were almost leveled.

Compared to what? c T-90, which on the latest versions of the nodes stick out of the body, because the dimensions have long been exhausted? Do we have a lot of tanks with integrated DZ? with the placement of tankers in a separate space that is not inhabited by a tower, with electronic control, which in the future can turn into a remote? But there are none at all, since it is possible to write like this that they are leveled, if this is a completely different level. This is what can not be in the previous ones. understand the difference? 0% - no and 100% - appeared.

Quote: Basarev

But it turned out that Armata was too complicated.

And this is a lie. It turned out that the budgets are not rubber, it turned out that your colleagues, as they can, are pushing down the budget of the Moscow region. It turned out that I had to choose and with difficulty where to produce, build, and so on, compared with the 90s when a lot was destroyed.

Quote: Basarev

Are we going to drive a completely outdated T-72 until the end of time?

You just wrote that the advantage of the new technology is leveled and that it is not really needed. Now exclaim about the obsolete. Feispalm.
By the way, can you list how the latest modifications are now outdated, as you put the T-72?

[tank64rus]

In general, here we must proceed from the fact that Armata is. Or is it a tank of tasks of the 60-70s, then the position of the T-95 supporters is clear. Or is it a tank of a "network-centric" war, where it is designed to perform other tasks as well, and this is communication and control of robotic tanks and UAVs as part of robotic complexes, providing communication with the central control center, targeting other fire weapons, etc. etc. In addition, do not forget that Armata was created as a platform for a whole line of armored vehicles here and T-15 and self-propelled guns and engineering vehicles, etc. So it is incorrect to represent the developers of the Armata, who supposedly simply simplified and made the T-95 project cheaper. Who is interested see patents and articles in the media.

[Red_Baron]

No one will watch anything. The article is correctly written, there is no data on the impossibility of comparison. Moreover, I would add that the T-95 if it went for testing with the T-14, then it could be compared, and this is all the chatter.
In fact, in this article there is nothing either in the original from NI or in this one on VO. Just once again, the transfusion from empty to empty, this is evident from the comments, not a single serious analysis or justification. But a large number of mourners came running in, who just had to ponder what all the stupid ones understand nothing, only they could save the country.
Moreover, it is ridiculous that these same people in different situations give the same arguments only when in plus, when in minus, depending on who they were asked to reproach.

[Saxahorse]

In general, one can only agree. The T-95 tank still looks more interesting than Almaty. There was no point in making a new tank with an old cannon. Explicitly saved on weapons. The new machine should be superior to the old models, otherwise what is the point of investing money? Is that a cut :(

[ty60]

The gun is not old. The old caliber. You don’t be friends with art at all. Increased the barrel length is another weapon. New ammunition, again almost different results. Changed the recoil guns, another volume in the tower was taken. There is no limit to perfection

[Saxahorse]

Quote: ty60

The gun is not old. The old caliber. You, my friend, don’t be friends with the art at all. Increased the length of the barrel, it’s another weapon.

Making the gun a few percent more powerful makes no sense. Let me remind you that the power of ammunition depends on the caliber in the cube.

[Red_Baron]

.

Quote: Saxahorse

The T-95 tank still looks more interesting than Almaty.

And do you show at least one T-95 or the results of its tests?

Quote: Saxahorse

There was no point in making a new tank with an old cannon. Explicitly saved on weapons.

It made sense to make any tank that gives a new platform, and at least not worse than the existing T-90 of the latest modifications. Any.
Already on its basis, you can produce anything. While the serial production is being worked out, equipment will appear not only for battle, and so on. Such processes take years and can undergo several changes to some kind of finished state. And perhaps quite substantial. But only working in the ranks, showing their strengths and weaknesses.
By cannon - the developer claims a performance increase of 30% from its predecessors.

[D16]

What touches me the most is that no one even remembered the weight of the Armata and the Iron Kaput. Considering the fact that there is one snatch on them .

[Red_Baron]

Well, the engine is quite powerful, and the final one, which they wanted to put, as I understand it, has not yet been developed. But the T-95 in the base is heavier than about 10 tons, maybe a little less. But I am sure that this is very preliminary data. If it is brought to the level of the current Armata, with new electronic equipment, integrated DZ, on-board protection modules, etc., it will add a few more tons at once.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

And do you show at least one T-95 or the results of its tests?

Sorry, but did you read the article? Object 195 was tested in duplicate. A third one was needed, but the funding was suddenly stopped, but then suddenly they started to make Armata from scratch.

[Red_Baron]

State tests were not, the data is classified. Once again I repeat to you there is nothing to compare them with.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

State tests were not, the data is classified. Once again I repeat to you there is nothing to compare them with.

Well, I'm sorry .. the cars were real, in iron .. Why are you fantasizing here? State acceptance did not pass? So you are acting up, Armata also did not pass army tests.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

Well, I'm sorry .. the cars were real, in iron .. Why are you fantasizing here?

What am I fantasizing about?

Quote: Saxahorse

The T-95 tank still looks more interesting than Almaty.

These are your words. On what basis do you say so if you do not have ANY data on these two tanks. You can fantasize by stating something. How do you do it. I am not stating anything, I ask where did you get at least some material for comparison. It is only known for certain that they have different guns and approximate dimensions. But if 152mm is put on Armata, then a spherical horse in general will turn out in a vacuum.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

On what basis do you say so if you do not have ANY data on these two tanks.

Actually, there were a lot of articles about Object 195. And even this article has a lot of specific data. I don’t understand your position at all ..

Information about the successful use of the 152 mm gun is enough to draw conclusions about the prospects of the machine.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

Information about the successful use of the 152 mm gun is enough to draw conclusions about the prospects of the machine.

From the successful use of nuclear weapons to modern missiles and bombs, a long way. Successful use does not mean anything. How it will be in operation is another matter when hundreds of shells are shot. Automatics work is checked, strengths and weaknesses are revealed. When they put 152mm on Armata, there will be no difference at all with this parameter. Tell us how the gun stabilizes on the T-95 during movement, how quickly the mechanism covers and how it copes, how the aiming takes place and at what speed and so on. You do not have any data even approximately, but already declare that information on successful application alone is enough. Yeah. And if it didn’t reach the second shot, it’s not important anymore - this exaggeration is just for example.

Quote: Saxahorse

Actually, there were a lot of articles about Object 195. And even this article has a lot of specific data. I don’t understand your position at all ..

Now I will bring them.

The 195 Object was created from the late eighties to the beginning of the tenth years. To date, work has been discontinued, but much of the information about the project is still inaccessible to the general public. The current T-14 project is being developed right now, which is why the industry respects the necessary level of secrecy. As a result, we and far abroad do not have all the desired information about the T-95 and T-14. Moreover, the lack of information does not interfere with the comparison of these MBTs, even if based on fragmentary data.

Moreover, even if it were all the same, only an approximate judgment would be about cars. The present is only alive. Here you can see the Tank Biathlon, see how the cars are moving, all aspects of their movement, see how the suspensions work, gear changes, speed increase. Only after operation will a person be able to tell you how comfortable the jobs are, how much they allow you to use all the features of the tank. Practical rate of fire, the behavior of the tank and the cannon during movement, mass distribution, movement over complex soils, aiming time, reliability of various mechanisms, etc., etc., etc. That is what makes up its real data. Read on the same IN article about comparing the T-72, T-80, T-64 and see the comments. The people who exploited them write about hundreds of points that affect the use of the tank, the service on it, its operation, which in no way can be reflected in the dry figures of the data.
No equipment is ever tested or modernized on paper. Its trial operation is underway, including the army, on which changes are introduced. According to some modern techniques, this can be seen literally before our eyes.
For example, at the same Tank biathlon it was seen how overstretched in front of Type 96. How pulled out the rollers and so on. This is the data that you do not have and will not have on the T-95. In Armata will be with time.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

This is the data that you do not have and will not have on the T-95. In Armata will be with time.

Exactly that "over time". In the rearmament of the Armata by 152 mm, almost the same amount will have to be invested as in its development. Despite the fact that the T-95 has already shown test results. The story with Armata is an obvious result of lobbying, someone managed to squeeze into the budget pushing away competitors.

I can only repeat what has already been said. Launching a new tank with an old cannon made no sense. In fact, the expensive Armata has a meager advantage over the old T-72 \ T-90. It would be better if they invested this money in a new BMP. BMP-3 is a blatant failure, and Kurganets or Dragoons were never brought to mind.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

Exactly that "over time". The rearmament of the Armata by 152 mm will have to invest almost the same amount as in its development.

Can I give you the numbers?

Quote: Saxahorse

While the T-95 already showed test results.

And what were they like? you're all lying.

Quote: Saxahorse

In fact, the expensive Armata has a meager advantage over the old T-72 \ T-90.

Nonsense is complete, you have written this nonsense before and are now repeating it. They answered several times why this is stupid, but you are not able to understand. Armata has a huge advantage over the T-90. just huge.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

Armata has a huge advantage over the T-90. just huge.

In size? Yes, of course, she is twice as much.

[Red_Baron]

You understand that it is scary, you write nonsense and, as if proud of it, flaunt. Although previously everything was described several times. You just once and ignored everything. I hope my words about stupidity do not hurt you, because there is no such purpose. But in another way it is impossible to say such tricks.
I will repeat again, I hope for the last in this thread.
Any new platform, even having it with characteristics equal to T-90, was needed. Do you understand? Any. T-90 has exhausted almost all the possibilities of modernization, see the latest versions. T-90AM / SM he already had to make some nodes outside the hull. Because a compact tank is good, but the placement of new components and mechanisms simply does not have space. By the way, they talked about this even on earlier versions. Large payload, more powerful planned engine. I understand that it is difficult to understand what a platform is without being interested in the topic at all. You at least read about the development of tanks in other countries. The platform is a unified release of a bunch of machines, which will be established within its framework. Almost immediately with Armata, the TBMP T-15 was designed. There is also a tank support machine, self-propelled guns, repair. All this will also be produced at the launch of large series. And this must be done, if not now then in the future. And the sooner a new platform would appear the better, because even more years will go to work on it. Actually, as with any equipment.
In addition, what you do not understand, but it is not possible for you to appreciate the importance of this, speaks of competence. For example, it is an electronic control that can go into a remote control. Do you understand? it does not need to be separately designed and implemented, it already exists with the tank platform. And this is the future, for tanks with a small number of crews and unmanned ones. This is planned for all tank-producing countries, but so far in the future they still have to implement it. And here it can be made much easier. An uninhabited tower - in fact, it is a huge DBM, which has not yet been used in serial tanks, and it’s gotten past two on prototypes. Integrated remote sensing in booking. Well and so on to smaller developments. Your one chatter about a gun is worth it. The developer claims to increase its power by 30%. And these are more powerful charges for shells, a larger machine gun supports the latest shells that machine guns of previous tanks cannot use.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

You understand that it is scary, you write nonsense and how would be proud of it

If so, let me answer you in your own style. You are full and frank nonsense and be proud of it!

It is no coincidence that the T-14 in this photograph resembles the huge and stupid troughs of the Soviet history of the T-35 and T28 .. The times of the first experiments with armored vehicles. The appearance of the T-14 Armata clearly speaks of the complete demise of the old Soviet school of tank building. Stupid, simple and trite. All competent Soviet engineers have died or long since retired. What we see under the name Armata is the fruit of the sin of effective managers with yesterday's students of C grade .. Enough already flogging nonsense about "the largest microcircuits in the world." The huge dimensions of the Armata indicate an extremely low culture of machine design. All units and assemblies turned out to be twice or three times more than those of their ancestors, in the same T-90. To be proud of this is at least ridiculous ..

I will repeat it for the "eleventh" time. Building a new car on the basis of an old cannon is deliberate stupidity. Moreover, it is well known about the European 140 mm cannons that have been tested for a long time. The new tank has long been needed, but Armata is outright bullshit. Don't give a damn about developments like the T-95 is a gross mistake and it is obvious that this was done solely for the sake of money.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

The appearance of the T-14 Armata clearly speaks of the complete demise of the old Soviet school of tank building. Stupid, simple and trite. All competent Soviet engineers have died or long since retired. What we see under the name Armata is the fruit of the sin of effective managers with yesterday's students of C grade .. Enough already flogging nonsense about "the largest microcircuits in the world." The huge dimensions of the Armata indicate an extremely low culture of machine design. All units and assemblies turned out to be twice or three times more than those of their ancestors, in the same T-90. To be proud of this is at least ridiculous ..

You know what is funny, that you cannot give a single justification for your words. No one. it's just your invention is not based on anything.

Quote: Saxahorse

I will repeat it for the "eleventh" time. Building a new car on the basis of an old cannon is deliberate stupidity.

Wow of the Old Cannon, that is, you could not even read what was written above about increasing the performance by 30%, I understand this is not important :)))
By the way, this confirms your stupidity. For example, the Turks do not agree with you. They built Altai around the "old cannon". And not only them. They wrote to you about the cannon above, but you couldn't read it there either. We could not read the extremely important remarks that it is not only the cannon that matters, that the tank itself is also important. And the funny thing is that they are going to install a 152mm cannon in this tank and work on it is going on.
So where do these statements about the tank around the gun. You yourself wrote above that the Germans mastered 140 mm, but did not switch to it. That is, the caliber is not important, since you can put another one on the tank?
So where is the logic in your tank words around the gun?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Red_Baron

You know what is funny, that you cannot give a single justification for your words. No one. it's just your invention is not based on anything.

Look at the photo .. Sage ..

[Cat man null]

Quote: Saxahorse

Look at the photo ..

Ahem ... I'm sorry, but if it's easier to come up?

T-14 body length 8700, width 3500
T-90 body length 6860, width 3780

Even from here it is clear that the scale in the "photograph", ahem, is somewhat distorted.

What is barking about?

[Cat man null]

Quote: Saxahorse

Bot is easy to identify

I don’t know who is determined by whom ... but obviously Andrey bit you, my friend

So what about crooked pics? They chewed her five times here, and spat them out for a long time ... bro, out of wretchedness for you - I used to be a tanker

[Red_Baron]

Well, for example, most Western tanks and not only Western dimensions larger than the T-90, so what? Here are the boobies - can’t build tanks? That is, only the dimensions determine the tank?
How does the photo explain this passage?
"What we see under the name Armata is the fruit of the sin of effective managers with yesterday's students of the C grade .."
or this one?
“Stop whipping nonsense about“ the largest microcircuits in the world. ”“ Let me tell you a secret, this is also chatter. In the military industry, electronics are usually used very far behind even household ones. But you repeat the old cliches.
T-90
Body length, mm 6860
Width, mm 3780


challenger 2
Body length, mm 8300
Width, mm 3520

abrams
Body length, mm 7925
Width, mm 3653

To be honest, I’m hard to say where the troechnik where else some kind of boobies. You have some kind of children's judgment. And not even understanding what to write about, you think that you have the right to evaluate and put stamps. Rare arrogance.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Red_Baron

State tests were not, the data is classified. Once again I repeat to you there is nothing to compare them with.

"...............
- How many copies of the T-95 were made?
- Three copies were made: the first - an experimental factory copy and two copies, they are called No. 1, No. 2 for state testing. State tests have passed.
- And what was the conclusion of the state commission? What did the military say?
- The conclusion was positive, however, with a long list of comments that needed to be addressed. Tank builders did everything that depended on them: hull, chassis, MTO, engine, control system, ICS. In general, the "cart" was ready. There were questions on the automatic loader, but most importantly - on sighting systems. In the 1990s, everything was very bad with domestic electronics. The Krasnogorsk Zenit plant was never able to bring the sights to the desired level. In addition, the car had to interact tightly with the environment, with satellites, with drones. But we still really do not have these systems! ...........
... - And here, like a bolt from the blue, the message that the already finished T-95 will not be accepted into service. Is this someone’s malicious intent or tragic mistake?
- Both intent and error. After state tests, in the highest echelons of power, the Ministry of Defense, and the design bureau, the "mouse fuss" began. Since we now live in a capitalist society, the interests of the state have receded into the background. The personal interests and the interests of corporations moved forward. KB creates a new tank as an intellectual product. Yes, they receive some deductions from the number of manufactured products, but this is not the main thing, the design bureau mainly lives on development, experimental design work. And so a dilemma arose: either “we” are finalizing the “195th”, adapting it to a new element base, installing other electronics, optics, thermal imagers ... or “we” put an end to this machine, and insist on opening experimental design work to create a new machine. This option was adopted. April 7, 2010 is the "black" date. On this day, Mr. Popovkin, then Deputy Minister of Defense and Chief of Armaments, announced the termination of funding for the development of the T-95 tank and the closure of the project. ............... "
From the article
"The history of the creation of a promising tank." Russian "Tiger" T-95 "
11.08.2013/19/01 at XNUMX:XNUMX "

[D16]

The T-95 tank still looks more interesting than Almaty.

What is more interesting in it? About 10 tons heavier on the same engine and transmission. Big drin? In terms of armored vehicles, it is redundant, for smooth support in self-propelled guns, a smooth barrel needs adjustable ammunition, which is not available. What costs money and requires target designation. So what is more interesting? In a couple of thirty?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: D16

What is more interesting in it? About 10 tons heavier on the same engine and transmission. Big drin?

Yes! Imagine sometimes size matters! Ammunition power is growing in a cube from the caliber. A 152 mm caliber gun will demolish two or three story buildings to the ground. And against armored vehicles today ATGM steers. Sawing a cannon a few percent more powerful was not the slightest sense.

[D16]

A 152 mm caliber gun will demolish two or three story buildings to the ground.

Maybe the foundation will immediately make it? Well, so as not to walk twice. Not long ATGM steer left.

Sawing a cannon a few percent more powerful was not the slightest sense.

And if these few percent guarantee the destruction of enemy tanks for decades to come?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: D16

And if these few percent guarantee the destruction of enemy tanks for decades to come?

Right for decades?

[D16]

Expect dramatic changes in physics and metallurgy? The answer is a few percent will be scratched out taking into account the existing restrictions on the weight and dimensions of armored vehicles.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: D16

Expect dramatic changes in physics and metallurgy?

It is you who dream of miracles. Percentages of type will help for decades ..

No need to reinvent the wheel where it has long been well known. In Europe, 140 mm guns have long been tested. They just feel sorry for the money for the new line of armored vehicles.

[D16]

Well of course all the troubles of greed . The gun must be tested with the tank. When tested, they did not want to redo the tank.

[Red_Baron]

I have the feeling that many do not quite understand what a cannon on a tank does. Well, the tank rides and rides, the gun sticks out for itself and sticks out - what could be wrong here?

[D16]

But how will the new gun add +100500 to invulnerability?

[Red_Baron]

At the expense of 140, of course, it’s good, but in general the most likely replacement can be a 130mm gun from reinmetal. However, not everything is so smooth and financially and technically. And the gun is heavier and its stabilization is much more difficult, more powerful aiming drives are needed and so on. And the Negroes charging also have a limited warranty. Money is also a pity.

[Signore Tomato]

T-95 hacked to death Tubaretkin in 2010. He came, looked and said: "Why endlessly distort old concepts? We need to switch to the newest ideas!" And he closed the project, and instead began to move the T-14. Unfortunately, these new ideas have not been worked out in real battles, and to pay for these "innovations" (and in real life - tyranny) with the lives of Russian guys. Hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives, in the case of BP (Big Kick-Ass).

[Radical]

Quote: Red_Baron

What you write is called a straw scarecrow. That is, you replace the concept and argue with something completely different.
Where did you see the disappointment in the combat capabilities of the T-14, except for the sofa talkers? Even the author of the article writes that in fact there is no data, do you have data on tests, or on the basis of what are you building conclusions? 15% of what characteristics did anyone have the mind to think so? That is, if the tank could just move at a speed of 140 km / h, then it would immediately be recognized as the best, even if otherwise it would be identical. After all, according to the sum of the technical characteristics, he would have jumped up. but nothing that the latest modifications of the T-90 are already bursting from all sides. The platform as a modern tank has completely exhausted itself. There is simply no place in it. All of its modernization is an attempt at not expensive cost to use what is at an acceptable level. About some kind of perspective, often even relevant, just do not have to talk.

Quote: bayard

Therefore, in order not to waste work for nothing, they began ... to prepare a modification of the T-14 with 152 mm. gun.

This is nonsense. Originally planned 152mm gun.

Quote: bayard

Instead of the T-95, in 15 years we will get ... a weakened (or equivalent) version of the T-95 for much (!) Big money.

Another nonsense. Announce the cost of the T-95 in production at the current time and T-14. You again referred to some fantasies. And you continue to argue as if the T-95 is already there and you can somehow compare it.

Quote: bayard

Thanks to Medvedev (then the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia) for such a chudo-yudo as "Armata" - it was HE who set the task of developing this particular machine.

I didn’t hear more delirium, to be honest. You mean Russia is not particularly shit. You call it a rashka as you are trying to cheat. I do not like the country, I went nafig from it.
Medvedev was president, approx. He is a developer of tanks or something, or some kind of expert, how could he set the task of developing exactly this or not. Does he even know tanks? what nonsense are you writing? You just need to appoint the culprit in the fact that everything in the world is not the way you now wanted to. And here is the main question, why should the world be as you want? Who are you?

And you?

[Radical]

Quote: Per se.

Quote: qqqq

at the forefront, when taking anything into service, is the economy.

If so, how can an expensive and complex base be designated in advance as a "platform"? If the initial price of the T-95 tank (object 195), in the case of the start of serial construction, was estimated at 450 million, with a powerful 152 mm cannon and the widespread use of titanium in the design to facilitate, then the T-14 is in the "budget" version, without 152 mm guns and without the widespread use of titanium, it was valued at "only" 400 million.

Now about the "Armata" itself, ala "platform", this is the same as on the basis of "Lexus" or "Bentley" to make more "boots" and "loaves" ... Technology is not born as a platform, technology becomes a platform, on proven, a well-proven base, developed by industry, relatively inexpensive. For example, a whole family of equipment based on the T-72 - ACS, TOS, bridgelayers, SEM, BMPT, and others. This is the platform.

Personally, I sincerely regret the lost time and the ruined supertank, which was almost ready, it only remained to make the third version for the State tests, spending a total of 700 million. Alas, they regretted this money, but only on R&D and R&D "Armata" spent 64 billion, and hundreds of millions on props for parades, raw, not accepted for service samples. This is strong, the T-95 could be ready as early as 2005 for mass production, and now 2019 is ending, we are still waiting. It may still have to return to Object 195, abandoning the platform adventure. The figure shows a side projection of the T-95 (object 195).

The tank in the photo for the article differs from the schematic image presented by you ....

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Radikal

The tank in the photo for the article differs from the schematic image presented by you ....

T-95 and T-14 (with a view of the armored capsule)

[Radical]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Radikal

The tank in the photo for the article differs from the schematic image presented by you ....

T-95 and T-14 (with a view of the armored capsule)

About nothing ....

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Radikal

About nothing ....

This is your comment about nothing.
Read the article starting with the title. Two tanks are compared. Is there a photo of the subject of the article? no. Are there any photos of these tanks in the comments to the article? again, no. Therefore, photographs of the T-95 and T-14 tanks have a place here, especially since the photographs have something to compare.
PS
T-14 in these photos without lateral protection - better visible features of the chassis.

[Radical]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Radikal

About nothing ....

This is your comment about nothing.
Read the article starting with the title. Two tanks are compared. Is there a photo of the subject of the article? no. Are there any photos of these tanks in the comments to the article? again, no. Therefore, photographs of the T-95 and T-14 tanks have a place here, especially since the photographs have something to compare.
PS
T-14 in these photos without lateral protection - better visible features of the chassis.

Then we'll talk, now it's not enough time.