Military Review

195 Object (T-95)

127
195 Object (T-95)



Object 195, also known as the T-95 tank or the Improvement 88 project, was supposed to become a promising Russian project a tank 4th generation. The tank was developed by the design bureau UKBTM in Nizhny Tagil. Unfortunately, the information about this project due to the secrecy of the development is very blurred, but something is already available in print. There is evidence that this vehicle has already passed state tests in 2008, and in July 2010 the tank held a private display at the Defense and Defense - 2010 exhibition. And although the future of the main battle tank T-95 is very vague, Vladimir Popovkin, the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, made a statement in April 2010 to stop the development of the tank, but the prospect of seeing the tank on the conveyor remains. According to the Minister of Industry of the Sverdlovsk Region, Uralvagonzavod is not going to abandon its project and will complete the development on its own.

The main difference between the 195 object and the existing tanks today is called the “carriage layout”, in which the gun is installed in a relatively small uninhabited turret, the ammunition load is under it, and the crew is isolated in a relatively small fully armored capsule. The tank is supposed to have an 152-mm smoothbore gun, which was developed in the USSR, a hydro-active suspension and a new X-shaped diesel engine with an 1500 hp.

In the program of creating a new tank, the concept of “a principled leap forward” was laid, which is characterized by 4 requirements:

1. Ensuring the maximum probability of hitting the target with a projectile with the guaranteed loss of the ability to fight.
2. Ensuring the survival of the crew when using cumulative or kinetic ammunition.
3. Integration of the combat vehicle into the ACS of the tactical command and control, as a result of which the tank becomes a full-fledged object of a unified system of armament of land forces on the battlefield.
4. Production on the chassis of the tank the whole range of combat vehicles, as well as equipment for the rear and technical support of the troops. The possibility of further phased upgrades over the years 30.

Based on these requirements, the creation of a tank requires the implementation of the following technological solutions:

1. Installation on a tank of multi-channel weapons in a complex with promising types of ammunition.
2. The operation of the armament complex must be supported by several technical vision channels: an optical aiming branch, thermal imaging and television channels.
3.Complete isolation of the crew, fuel and ammunition, increasing the level of protection in 2-3 times.
4. Installation of a gas turbine or diesel engine of increased power up to 1500 hp with the use of hydromechanical suspension, which will provide superiority in average speed, dynamics and power density compared to existing counterparts.
5. The tank must be equipped with an internal system of automatic self-control over the technical condition (health) of its own systems. The information management system must prepare data for firing, control the weapon system, exercise control of the control, receive information from the outside and use its own.

The adoption of such a tank would dramatically increase the effectiveness of armored forces on the battlefield, allowing it to be integrated into the information space with other means of fire destruction of the ground forces and aviation at the level of tactical links. The results of military-economic efficiency calculations show that the tank’s combat life — the number of tasks to be accomplished in a battle until it returns to irretrievable losses — should increase by 3 times.




Layout

A radically new feature of the main battle tank of the future, which includes the T-95 being developed, is changing its layout. The crew of the tank is reduced to 2-x people and is located in a special armored capsule, which is separated from a small tower, equipped with automatic charging and ammunition. This layout can significantly reduce the silhouette of the tank to approximately 2 meters in height and make it more invisible on the battlefield. Also significantly increases the safety of the crew, which is separated from the ammunition and fuel tanks sheets of armor. It is assumed that the mass of the tank, taking into account an increase in the level of booking, will increase its mass to 55 tons.

weaponry

The basic one weapons The new tank should become a gun caliber 135-152 mm, equipped with new automatic charging. Recently, more and more information about installing on a tank 152-mm guns and auxiliary machine guns caliber 7,62 and 14,5 mm appears. Do not exclude the possibility of using with the gun radar.





Fire Control System

Tankers will receive information about the target using optical, thermal imaging and infrared channels. The MSA will receive a laser rangefinder and radar station. It should be noted that the new layout imposes more stringent requirements on the SLA, since the crew will not be able to use traditional optical devices because of the new uninhabited tower. Foreign projects of such tanks involve the transfer of all information about the situation on the battlefield to special screens that will create the effect of vision for the crew through armor in any direction. All new tanks will necessarily receive a recognition system "friend or foe", which will allow the crew to feel more comfortable in the conditions of a modern dynamic battlefield.




Mobility

Experts believe that to provide the mobility necessary for a modern battlefield, a tank must receive an engine of at least 1500 horsepower. This power is able to develop a promising X-shaped diesel. As a result of equipping the tank with a similar engine in conjunction with a new transmission, the car will receive good dynamic characteristics and improved smoothness, necessary primarily for firing in motion. It is assumed that the crankshaft will be located along the axis of the combat vehicle, which is due to the layout of the new diesel engine and provides a more convenient docking with the hydromechanical transmission. It should be noted that this engine is a fundamentally new development and has an impressive potential for increasing power while maintaining or slightly increasing its overall dimensions and weight.
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. common man
    common man 26 October 2013 08: 49
    18
    . It is written in the future tense, but it should be similar in the past. The figures and photos are completely different tanks. It seems that the author wants to draw the community into another discussion about Armata. Well, the flag is in our hands.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 26 October 2013 10: 32
      +5
      Many quite seriously wrote even, it’s ridiculous to say, about the total superiority of the Black Eagle over Armata ...
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 26 October 2013 17: 16
        24
        What's so funny about that? "Black Eagle" and its subsequent development "Burlak" were already more or less ready. The Burlak turrets (panoramic sight for the commander, ammo and AZ in the rear of the turret) could already modernize a bunch of T-72,80,90 and significantly increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of Russian tanks. In addition, the Burlak tower could have been an export hit, given the number of countries operating the T-72. And now, apart from plans for the future, there is nothing significant! Probably the problem is in the strong influence of UVZ, because the Ob 640 and Burlak are Omsk projects, based on the T-80.
  2. mirag2
    mirag2 26 October 2013 09: 30
    +3
    Well, yes, such a tank is needed, and is it "Armata" or not "Armata" - in my opinion it is absolutely purple ...
  3. Crang
    Crang 26 October 2013 09: 33
    +1
    The tank shown in the photo is similar to the Swiss Nkpz.61 tank. Tall and narrow. Her ... T-99 "Armata" is better.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 26 October 2013 10: 36
      +1
      The German tank of World War I A7V was also tall and narrow, which made it easy to tip over on bumps and become easy prey.
    2. Kars
      Kars 26 October 2013 10: 55
      +7
      Quote: Krang
      Tall and narrow. Her ... T-99 "Armata" is better.

      Are you sure that T-99)))) and why not 015? by the way) low and wide?
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 27 October 2013 16: 22
        0
        As always, it’s gorgeous, correctly noticed that until they are adopted, the car will be called object N.
    3. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 October 2013 13: 44
      +4
      Quote: Krang
      Tall and narrow.


      He has a center of gravity, presumably, closer to the ground, though.
  4. Iraclius
    Iraclius 26 October 2013 09: 46
    +2
    It should be noted that the new layout imposes more stringent requirements for the LMS, since the crew will be deprived of the opportunity to use traditional optical devices because of the new uninhabited tower. Foreign projects of such tanks involve the transfer of all information about the situation on the battlefield to special screens that will create the crew's vision effect through the armor in any direction.


    The main Achilles heel of the new tank. Alas, even the memorable turrets with remote control have not become the norm on domestic machines, and here it is proposed to automate the LMS of the entire tower.
    The idea with an uninhabited tower and complete isolation of fuel, ammunition and crew looks revolutionary and promising, but, it seems, everything will remain in the shops and drawings of the plant for many years.
    They want to increase the reservation 2-3 times. The question is how? If the mass increases by only 10 tons.
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 18: 39
      +1
      As for armor, if the crew is reduced to two people, taking into account the rearrangement (shells, AZs most likely in the tower, the engine and tanks at the rear, the crew in front, in front of the tower), a lot of space is freed up. The new tank, designed according to a two-seater scheme, with a gun mount, should initially be more compact. Thus, while maintaining the tank armament and powerful engine, you can make the defense larger, because the same in mass (or even larger, the tank will seem to be heavier, and less weight will be put on the turret), the protection covers a smaller volume. In this situation, increasing the mass by 10 tons, you can seriously increase the protection, and there will still be some reserve for mobility, or for KAZ.
  5. ent
    ent 26 October 2013 10: 02
    +3
    Gur Khan (Aleksey Khlopotov) had an interview with the Rosinformburo news agency, where he, in his own words (a bit confused and with the usual "hairpins" addressed to the KMDB), talked about the history of object 195:

    part 1 - http://www.rosinform.ru/2013/07/08/armata-istoriya-sozdaniya-russkogo-perspektiv
    nogo-tanka /

    part 2 - http://rosinform.ru/2013/08/05/istoriya-sozdaniya-russkogo-perspektivnogo-tanka-
    kak-delali-abrams-kaput /

    part 3 - http://www.rosinform.ru/2013/08/11/istoriya-sozdaniya-perspektivnogo-tanka-russk
    iy-tigr-t-95 /
  6. ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 26 October 2013 10: 03
    +1
    Yeah. Waiting for now, I hope at least it will be a worthy answer for the West.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 26 October 2013 10: 37
      +1
      And what? The current T-90A unworthy response to the West?
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 October 2013 10: 38
        0
        Quote: Basarev
        The current T-90A unworthy response to the West?

        NOT...
        1. svp67
          svp67 26 October 2013 10: 58
          +9
          Quote: Basarev
          The current T-90A unworthy response to the West

          It is outdated, 10 years ago ... A more or less worthy answer is the tank, which we know as the T90MS, but our Ministry of Defense is not going to buy it, putting it on the modernization of the T72, before the modification of the B3, which is also difficult to call a "worthy answer" the absence of many modern systems, primarily in the protection system ...
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 26 October 2013 11: 12
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          NOT...

          I will not be so categorical, BUT I will not refute your comment. In many characteristics, our tank surpasses many Western models ...
          I will write only about one significant drawback of the T90 and modifications, namely (in comparison with the Abrams):
          - thrust-to-weight ratio of 21 hp / t and 24 hp / t in favor of "Abrams";
          - Т90 is equipped with a mechanical transmission with on-board step gearboxes that act as a turning mechanism.

          The Abrams is equipped with a hydrostatic transmission and a swing mechanism with digital control systems.
          Accordingly, the maneuverability of the T90 is lower;

          - The reverse speed of the T90 is limited to 4,8 km / h, while the Abrams hydrostatic transmission will provide a "reverse" speed of up to 30 km / h.

          And the rest, given the COMPLEX of characteristics of the T90, is close in level to the best modern foreign tanks.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 26 October 2013 11: 41
            +5
            Quote: Corsair
            I will write only about one significant drawback of the T90 and modifications, namely (in comparison with the Abrams):

            1. This is just not the worst flaw.
            The tank is not a fighter, drives on uneven ground, 3 HP per ton do not play a significant role (especially when driving uphill, given more than 60 tons of abrams mass). And if you remember that he eats kerosene like a "bull slop", then you will not want high power and speed (achievable only on flat terrain)
            2. The transmission on Abrams is not hydrostatic, but hydrodynamic (a torque converter, it is not clear, however, why it is needed with a gas turbine engine), with a planetary gearbox and hydrostatic rotation mechanisms. The tank is controlled smoothly, but KPD is much less (and the complexity and price are much higher) than the fur. hydraulically controlled power transmission.
            3. At a speed of 30 km an hour and forward, driving through the fields is not very clever, the STV will almost always be in the hydraulic lock (shoot - with the help of a perfect FCS, I don’t want to laughing ), a tank is not a passenger car on the highway, but you can back so only in the desert (smooth). Although, of course, the speed 3 / X 12-15 km per hour and the T-90 would not hurt.
            1. Corsair
              Corsair 27 October 2013 09: 11
              +3
              Quote: Alekseev
              .Transmission on Abrams is not hydrovolume but hydrodynamic (torque converter

              Quote: Corsair
              The Abrams is equipped with a hydrostatic transmission and a swing mechanism with digital control systems.

              I took the information about the "hydrostatic transmission" from open sources, and I don't know where the "discrepancies" about it came from.
              I am not a tanker, but only a "sympathetic" and to comment on the situation "around" the T90 was often forced by unfair reviews about the qualities of the armored vehicle hi
              1. Alekseev
                Alekseev 27 October 2013 10: 34
                +2
                Quote: Corsair
                I took the information about the "hydrostatic transmission" from open sources, and I don't know where the "discrepancies" about it came from.
                I am not a tanker, but only a "sympathetic" and to comment on the situation "around" the T90 was often forced by unfair reviews about the qualities of the armored vehicle

                It’s true that the reviews about the T-90 are often not fair,
                in particular, they are not so important. But sometimes it’s necessary to remember them, otherwise we’ll go too far! wink
                hi
          2. Crang
            Crang 26 October 2013 13: 57
            +5
            Quote: Corsair
            And the rest, given the COMPLEX of characteristics of the T90, is close in level to the best modern foreign tanks.

            He is not only close. He is better than foreign tanks. The T-90A has a KUV. Westerners don’t. The T-90A has a AZ, the western ones do not. The T-90A has a NDZ. many Westerners do not yet.
            1. Abracadabra
              Abracadabra 26 October 2013 17: 44
              +1
              The T-90 does not have a single advantage against Western tanks, it is a modified T-72. Western tanks also have a KUB and are much more accurate, more technologically advanced and the flight range is 2 times higher. But it is not used, since the crews of n.p. Leo2 and armor-piercing can shoot up to 5 km, on one of the tenders, I don't remember the Greek, or Turkish, Abrams, with a short cannon, hit targets that were further 5 km away. The Leo2 crew is guaranteed to hit 4,5 km, this is the standard, but further is possible too. Therefore, the Israeli "Lahat" is also tested, it hits targets in Leo2 up to 8,5 km and can be controlled by a third, that is, a UAV, or a reconnaissance aircraft, but given the current level of competitors (Russia, China) tanks have not yet been supplied with this system. During the biathlon with tanks, not a single missile hit the target, although the target was at a distance of 1800m, stationary and the tank did not move, by the way, this confirms many statements that rocket fire is almost never practiced in the army. Western tanks also have AZ and are an order of magnitude faster, for example. Leclerc has 15 rounds per minute, or on a Korean K21 tank, or on a Japanese one too. AZ on Leo2, or A1M2 was abandoned because of the rate of fire, so the loader can throw up to 20 shells per minute. Western tanks also have DZ, but in addition to DZ, they also have modern armor. So I don't see any advantage of the T-90 over modern tanks.
              1. Lyokhin63
                Lyokhin63 26 October 2013 23: 19
                +5
                Quote: Abra Kadabra
                they also have modern armor.

                Explain to the amateur what does modern armor mean?
                Yes, T-72 participated in biathlon. Is not it so?
                1. Basileus
                  Basileus 26 October 2013 23: 29
                  +4
                  T-72 participated in biathlon, yes.

                  The armor is more modern - it could be anything. For example, depleted uranium plates. Currently, armor is more than a plate of homogeneous steel, and the composition of the armor "sandwich" can be anything. By the way, without a real shelling with modern NATO ammunition, one can only speak about the advantages of their armor over ours without proof.
                2. Abracadabra
                  Abracadabra 27 October 2013 02: 22
                  +2
                  The active tanks of the Russian army took part in the biathlon, and in the event of war, they are the ones who are fighting. T-90 is not much better than the same T-72. Modern armor is the use of various, newest composites, ceramics, but you never know what, most importantly, it allows you to hold shells and other dangers without DZ.
              2. Basileus
                Basileus 26 October 2013 23: 26
                +8
                targets beyond 5 km. Leo2 crew is guaranteed to hit 4,5 km, this is the standard

                Characteristics of the projectile, targets, conditions is it possible?

                Therefore, the Israeli "Lahat" is also tested, it hits targets in Leo2 up to 8,5 km

                How many Lahats are armed with Germany?

                an order of magnitude faster

                That is, our tanks have a rate of fire of 1,5 rounds / min?
                1. Abracadabra
                  Abracadabra 27 October 2013 02: 31
                  -3
                  The Leo2 crew is jerked at distances from 3-4,5 km, this is anyone who is more or less familiar with the topic knows. Projectile - DM53 / 63. Lakhat is not accepted, because a potential competitor (Russia, China) has nothing that could be close to becoming dangerous for the Leo2 crew. As soon as Russian tanks learn to shoot accurately at targets further than 3 km, as soon as they need the ability to shake Leo's crew further 5-6 km, they will enter it immediately, without any problems. Tested for a long time and Rheinmetall offers the Kit for 1,5 mio. I can throw off a video, early 2000s, testing Lahat on Leo2A4. The Leo2 crew can fire up to 20 rounds per minute. No need to dig into the word "order" .. By the way, what will happen if AZ breaks down? But this happens and not rarely!
                  1. Kolovrat77
                    Kolovrat77 27 October 2013 06: 32
                    +4
                    Quote: Abra Kadabra
                    Leo 2 crew



                    Leo2’s crew works out just thinking about a war with Russia, so if you don’t want a war with Russia, but you are for Peace, for Peace is Hans, then quickly sell your leopolds to Africa (not for Peace there) and calmly, without haste (qualitatively) .... do marinka, beshki and audyuhi for us, and we will sell you the dead gas by God. All for garlic.
                    1. Abracadabra
                      Abracadabra 27 October 2013 21: 24
                      -4
                      No one there even thinks of a war with Russia. We are talking about technology and the only likely enemy to tanks like Leo2 are Russian-made tanks, but this does not mean that the crews are taught to fight with Russia. It is in Russian zombies that power, which itself loves Western standards of life for itself, but not for the people, sets people hostile to the West.
                      1. Kolovrat77
                        Kolovrat77 27 October 2013 22: 11
                        +1
                        [quote = Abra-Kadabra] No one there even thinks of a war with Russia. [/ Qu

                        CERTAINLY does not think, AND DOESN'T SLEEP AND DOES NOT SEE. Well, then why do you need tanks? You are for PEACE.

                        [quote = Abra-Kadabra] This is the power in Russian zombie media, which itself loves Western standards of life for itself, but not for the people, sets people hostile to the west. [/ quote]
                        Late Hans, late campaigning - Munich speech took place.

                        I would like to know that there are Western standards of life, in your understanding, and how they differ from our central ones.
                        I just feel like righteous anger is growing in me (the influence of vile power), help, advise me how to get rid of entoy misfortune (MAY PILLS WHICH A, ALI MIXTURE). I went along the zombosmi of KVN to watch (this is the Russian national fun), I will also be sick of malays. Be healthy German.
                      2. Gloomy
                        Gloomy 29 January 2018 23: 10
                        0
                        What are the standards of living? This is when gay parades suit? Or when the Arabs beat your face and your women are raped? God forbid us your standards. We’re better in the old fashioned way, we sleep with women, and we won’t give them an insult.
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 27 October 2013 13: 36
                    +7
                    Quote: Abra Kadabra
                    The crew of Leo2 is rooted at distances from 3-4,5 km,

                    all the same, along the way, you should give evidence to your own words.

                    As for the rate of fire of 20, then even a technical one was not announced there.
                  3. Basileus
                    Basileus 27 October 2013 16: 20
                    +6
                    So you enlighten those who do not know.

                    And the video where Leopard 2 shoots 20 rounds per minute, followed by pumping the loader.
                    1. Abracadabra
                      Abracadabra 27 October 2013 20: 46
                      -2
                      I give the data of the Leo crews with whom I personally spoke. 20 v / m, does not mean that all 20 shots will be fired, which means that n.p. 3 shells, every 3 seconds the loader is able to throw and this is possible. If the tank is standing and there is no need to aim, then it is quite realistic. Here is a video where Leo2 shoots on rough terrain, the loader keeps the shell ready and throws it after 4 seconds. after the shot.
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2x3NyqOQ34
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 27 October 2013 20: 51
                        +3
                        Quote: Abra Kadabra
                        I present the data of the Leo crews with whom I personally spoke

                        Oh well? And I personally communicated that 30 and with defective MH in manual mode.


                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 27 October 2013 21: 20
                        +1
                        Shooting from M1A2 Abrams
                      3. Uhe
                        Uhe 27 October 2013 22: 43
                        +1
                        And I thought charging them blacks;)
                      4. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 27 October 2013 23: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Uhe
                        And I thought charging them blacks;

                        They have black drivers.
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 27 October 2013 23: 57
                        0
                        M1A2 Abrams Army Tank Crew Members' Positions Driver, Gunner,
                2. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 27 October 2013 23: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Yah?

                  Do you know anything about this car
                3. Dimon-chik-79
                  Dimon-chik-79 28 October 2013 09: 41
                  +2
                  Well, too sterile Neither those burns nor soot And the gun campaign pneumatics laughing
              3. Basileus
                Basileus 27 October 2013 21: 26
                0
                That is, there will be no proof?
              4. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 20: 13
                +4
                The tank will fly into the "teapot" from the T-72B, your loader from the video will head into the wall, together with the OBPS in his hands laughing
                He won’t even be able to hold on properly if the tank shakes abruptly. Especially in Russia laughing
                By the way, here is on the topic, from the user Aleks tv
                I think that each autoloader has its own characteristics. I don’t know how foreigners reduce the loading time of a tank gun, and we did this:

                At a certain time, when performing the task, they predicted what type of projectile we would need in the first shot, second, third.
                Accordingly, AZs were loaded like that, writing shots by type into memory, and placing them sequentially one after another (there are certain troubles there).
                Thereby reducing the forced conveyor stroke.

                But more often it was necessary to apply one PF.
                After loading a series of shells one after another, and having written the cells in the memory as a OF, we put the conveyor in the "manual" mode and called the first loaded OF as if to unload, thereby completely choosing the course of rotation of the conveyor, and then canceling the command, the cell went down and stayed right in instant lift mode. We put both AZ control switches in the "auto" position and that's it.

                Accordingly, the time for the movement of the conveyor was not required for the first shot. For the next shots, the transporter took only one minimum step. The rate of fire was maximum, only they had time to measure and drop the range on the "Cheburashka", and poke the "AZ" with their thumb.

                Nothing complicated, everyone did it.
                And surprises when suddenly a different type of ammunition was required (and, accordingly, a conveyor course was required) were not often.
      2. Yorgven
        Yorgven 27 October 2013 06: 04
        +6
        so the loader can throw up to 20 shells per minute ---- I do not believe, well, except maybe 40 mm in the tape :)
      3. Alekseev
        Alekseev 27 October 2013 18: 38
        +2
        Quote: Abra Kadabra
        So I do not see any advantages

        Not surprisingly, given the whole range of problems that affect your eyesight. wink
        Despite some admiration for you as a well-known tanker practitioner (he, true, charged 20 a / b per minute, and even while driving through potholes, studied all the tanks of the world), but let me remind you of one advantage of the T-90 ( just in terms of view) - this is the dimensions of the machine.
        A very, incidentally, not unimportant thing. Why, guessing how ardent a specialist in BTT is not difficult. wink
        And also one more advantage, clearly visible by sight, is the size of the reserved volume. After all, roughly speaking, the smaller it is, the thicker the armor.
        I will not conduct a useless dispute about "higher" matters (advantages).
        But, as you see, they are! And easily visible, right on the "surface" of the combat vehicle. laughing
        1. Abracadabra
          Abracadabra 27 October 2013 20: 58
          -5
          In addition to the height of the tank, are there any other advantages? Until now, I have not heard anything sensible. Whatever it was, but I bet that the meeting between the NATO crew on Leo2 and the T-90 crew will not be in favor of the second. Due to the different level of crew training, due to the T-90’s dangerous configuration for the crew, the dispersion of ammunition and missile charges, obsolete ammunition, the worst level of SLA, rate of fire, and mobility. Also, if we take into account that there are already tested and adopted weapons systems KAZ-Trophy, ADF, Iron Fist, then in the event of a war with an enemy having tanks of the T-72/90 level, not a single tank without such a system will be sent into battle .
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 20: 26
            +2
            Leopard2 has 27 rounds next to the mechvod. This is not considered dangerous for the crew, right?

            SUO T-90A outdated? Seriously?
      4. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 19: 09
        +3
        We watched different biathlon, apparently. Because outdated TURs for the T-72B hit (though not all) the target.

        The practical rate of fire "Leclerc" is 10-12 rounds per minute.

        Do you know what armor the T-90A has? Share with us, because for some reason there is no such information (and if there is, then the equivalents of homogeneous steel taken from whence come from, and by no means small figures are indicated in comparison with other tanks).

        Can Leopard2 fire 20 times per minute? You probably shot yourself? This is the most curious fact in your post. Because the ammunition rack of the first stage of the Leopard2 is 15 rounds. The rest are next to the mechvod.
  7. svp67
    svp67 26 October 2013 21: 28
    +5
    Quote: Corsair
    And the rest, given the COMPLEX of characteristics of the T90, is close in level to the best modern foreign tanks.

    T90 is very vague, what modification of the T90 are you talking about? A question was asked about the "modernity" of the T90A. So tell me, what are its characteristics, in comparison with the tanks of the Western powers by:
    - detection and the possibility of firing targets at night,
    - what is the speed, range, and armor penetration of an armor-piercing-subcaliber projectile,
    - the possibility of "command control" through the "combat-infarmation system",
    - the capabilities and degree of security of communications,
    -the ability of the tank commander to use the main weapons.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 27 October 2013 01: 03
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      T90 is very vague, what version of T90 are you talking about?

      Indeed, there are many modifications, but let us take it as a "reference" model of the T90A, which was put into service in 2005.
      - starting from 2006, a modern 90nd generation Essa thermal imager with a Katrin matrix (France), integrated with the main sight and its rangefinder channel, has been installed on the T2A under construction, and this allows increasing the night vision range from 1800m (the former model "Buran M" ) up to 4000m.

      - by BOPS:
      since the 90 years, the aging Soviet BOPs3BM-32 and 3BM-44 with cores of depleted uranium and tungsten, respectively, have been used.
      To replace them, new BOPSs with improved characteristics have been developed, affecting the frontal armor of almost all western tanks. These are 3BM-44M and 3BM-48 "Lead".
      True, the share of their use on the T90 requires the replacement of an automatic loader, because it is not designed for the use of ammunition long 740mm.
      As a "bonus" to the basis of the commentary, you can attach the ability to fire with the 9K199Reflex-M complex, with a firing range of up to 5000m, which in turn is 2 - 2,5 times higher than the return fire range of any enemy tanks (Western), besides Unlike BOPS missiles, it retains unchanged armor penetration rates at any distance.

      In the T90MS modification, the tank is equipped with an automated control system "Kalina" with an integrated tactical control system. The control system includes a multi-channel gunner's sight and a "panorama" of the commander, a digital ballistic computer with a set of sensors and a duplicate sight.
      Thanks to the LMS, equal opportunities have been provided for finding both a gunner and a commander. This system allows the commander to monitor the phono-target situation regardless of the time of day or weather conditions, to detect and identify targets, realizing their capture for auto-correction. And to transmit data to the gunner through target designation mode destruction by continuing the search.

      But on the "communication means", unfortunately there is NO information request , but also what is given above, in my opinion, is enough to understand - the tank is still good and "toothy" ...
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 27 October 2013 02: 18
        -4
        Where is 5000m "2 - 2,5 times the range of return fire of any enemy tanks (Western)" ?? :) The Leo2 crew standard, with a probability of 92,8%, at full speed, should hit the enemy from the first shot, which also moves at full speed at a distance of 4,5 km. At 3 km, the probability is already about 100%. Standing without any problems, they will hit even 5 km. For this reason, they have not been put into service for 10 years already, the long-proven TUR Lakhat system, the range on Leo2 8,5 km, can be controlled by a third after a shot, a UAV, or a scout.
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 27 October 2013 09: 18
          +9
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          Where is 5000m "2 - 2,5 times the range of return fire of any enemy tanks (Western)" ?? :) The Leo2 crew standard, with a probability of 92,8%, at full speed, should hit the enemy from the first shot, which also moves at full speed at a distance of 4,5 km. At 3 km, the probability is already about 100%. Standing without any problems, they will hit even 5 km.

          Everything is learned in comparison ... Come to the "biathlon", we will compare the capabilities of OUR and YOUR models of equipment and weapons for the benefit of all, show the training of the crews.
          1. Abracadabra
            Abracadabra 27 October 2013 21: 46
            -1
            And what is there to compare? The Poles had to abandon their PT91, as they could not participate in maneuvers at the same level. This concerned both speed and ability, range of hitting targets. Although the Poles wanted to leave their PT91 and include them in the tactics of using their new Leo2. Unable to even modernization.
          2. Witch
            Witch 28 October 2013 10: 15
            +1
            And next year they will come ...
            Basically, they kind of agreed ...
            1. Getman
              Getman 28 October 2013 12: 42
              -2
              Why Ukraine was not invited to Biathlon? They are afraid to dishonor their T-72/90 in front of the stronghold
        2. Alekseev
          Alekseev 27 October 2013 19: 15
          +6
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          The Leo2 crew standard, with a probability of 92,8%, at full speed, should hit the enemy from the first shot, who also moves at full speed at a distance of 4,5 km. At 3km, the probability is already around 100%.

          When such fabrications are called normative combat training, you immediately see who you are dealing with. smile Especially impressive is 92,8%! And the phrase "at full speed"! By analogy, probably, with the battleship of the squadron. laughing
          By the way, about shells.
          I often come across statements about obsolete BOPS and other ammunition.
          But I am sure that not many people imagine the power of a 125 mm tank shell "in nature". "Some civilians" have formed a firm opinion that hitting a tank with an outdated BOPS is like a "pellet elephant", and only with a HE shell, a mosquito bite.
          I dare to assure that this is far from the case. Not to mention getting into a weakened defense zone, a projectile strike even without breaking through the armor is very cool.
          So I witnessed when a 125 mm HE shell hit the stern of the T-64 meters from 400 meters. There the armor is simple "homogeneous" about 40-50 mm
          The weld of the BKP crankcase burst, the engine and the left BKP tore off the supports, of course, the BKP crankcase was also deformed. The tank was not subject to repair under military conditions. The crew really remained only pretty scared.
          A 100 mm practical blank (not even a BR) from a D-10t (T-55) pierces 1000 mm ISU-90 armor at 152 m and flies on "as if nothing was buzzing"
          When a practical projectile hit 1 mm in the BMP-125, despite the absence of explosives, the entire crew and 9 landing personnel perished.
          And if the range in the aisles is 1000-1200 m, which is very typical for many theater of war, then the old ammunition and the new, there is not much difference. (exclude, of course, BC)
          So, even though sometimes the "horses" are somewhat outdated, they can still plow the "furrow" very deep.
          But, of course, it is necessary to improve tank ammunition, including for the T-90 and Armata.
          A qualitative breakthrough in power, in my opinion, would have occurred during the transition to a caliber of 152 mm. But ..., diversity, high cost - this, of course, is.
          1. Abracadabra
            Abracadabra 27 October 2013 21: 19
            +3
            I served in the Bund, though not on Leo2, but we had them. I spoke with the crews more than once. Recently, when simulators were introduced, the accuracy has increased significantly! Even on Leo2A4, the crews learned to hit targets up to 4,5 km. This is with a short cannon and an old MSA. Now the Bundeswehr is being rearmed with the Leo2A7 +, and it has an even more powerful and more accurate MSA. "Mango" is the only projectile in use now, and their penetration is somewhere around 600mm, maybe a little more, but it doesn't matter. It is important that the manufacturers of armor for Leo2, Abrams, etc. know this, and all their armor is designed against "Mango". I'm not even talking about the fact that Leo2 are operating in a group with "Cougars" and "Tiger" percussion pads. In general, in my opinion it is absurd to imagine that NATO and the Russian army will ever be at war with each other .. In the West, Russia, the Russian people, and culture are very well treated. Russia is the same European, Christian country, like other European countries, this is how they see it. In Russia, the government-controlled media and all sorts of "geostrategic experts" are blatant nonsense, inciting people against the West and Europe.
            1. Kars
              Kars 27 October 2013 21: 35
              +4
              Quote: Abra Kadabra
              The Bundeswehr is now rearmament on Leo2A7 +

              Really? Re-equip? And how many have already entered the troops?
              And in general, is there something like a statement / announcement on the adoption of the A7 and even the Bundeswehr’s weapons?
            2. Getman
              Getman 28 October 2013 12: 47
              +2
              And in Russia, the media has created one so that only fagots live in Europe, and most importantly in the EU are Geyparads. America will not be seen at all for the fact that they climb everywhere, teach and have the most powerful army. And they hate it because the Russians themselves want to climb everywhere and teach everyone, but it doesn’t work
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 26 October 2013 13: 49
    +8
    Quote: Basarev
    And what? The current T-90A unworthy response to the West?


    The T-90A, unfortunately, was not even thought of as a modern tank. It was put into production, because the MO ordered the T-90, because there was no other adopted weapon. A machine with units that were already produced for the Indian army went into production.
  • Crang
    Crang 26 October 2013 10: 03
    +2
    Apparently they had in mind the survivability and survival of the crew, increase by 2-3 times. And the armor itself will not increase much.
  • svp67
    svp67 26 October 2013 10: 12
    +7
    The crew of the tank is reduced to 2 people and is located in a special armored capsule,
    This is good, only the support units will now have to be quadrupled in number and equipment, otherwise there will be no opportunity to not provide service or provide tank units ...
    1. luiswoo
      luiswoo 26 October 2013 10: 49
      +3
      The crew of two people looks a bit fantastic - the level of automation should be impressive. One control of the main gun and anti-personnel turret by one person in a combat situation costs a lot.
      1. Kars
        Kars 26 October 2013 10: 59
        +8
        Quote: luiswoo
        the crew looks like two people - the level of automation should be impressive
        1. svp67
          svp67 26 October 2013 11: 05
          +4
          Any fantasy, sooner or later become a reality, and then the past ...
      2. svp67
        svp67 26 October 2013 11: 01
        +4
        Quote: luiswoo
        - The level of automation should be impressive.

        It was quite achievable, back in the 80s of the 20th century ...
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 26 October 2013 11: 26
          +1
          two people - absolutely not real - three, this is clear even to a layman like me
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 04
            +6
            Really. The Germans proved this in the late 90s. Kampfpanzer Versuchsträger 2000 Technology Demonstrator

            http://strangernn.livejournal.com/797630.html
            1. ramsi
              ramsi 26 October 2013 13: 31
              +1
              Well, such a car will ride in a toy way; I somehow doubt that the subtleties of controlling heavy equipment at the intersection are noticeably simpler than the subtleties of controlling weapons ... Well, the remaining two will have to be seriously distracted by this auxiliary process
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 05
                +2
                That's why they created this technology demonstrator in order to find out the fundamental possibility of reducing the number of crew members to two. The experiment showed that it is possible
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi 26 October 2013 18: 47
                  +1
                  it’s hard to argue with you, tell me, do you believe in the future of electric vehicles? .. For example, I don’t, although the fundamental possibility and advantages are not disputable
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 20: 39
                    +2
                    We will see. It is possible that these technologies will simply facilitate the combat work of the driver, freeing up part of his time to observe the battlefield. And the gunner will completely take over the work of the gunner, the commander will simply mark the targets and determine the order of their defeat.

                    For example, let’s recall the already existing robotic combat module developed by Belarusians. There it happens in automatic mode: the target or the target area is marked, and the device fulfills them in accordance with the program laid down in it.
                    There is a Russian "Chrysanthemum", in which a machine gun is engaged in guiding one of the missiles in a salvo, there is a similar one in the self-propelled "Kornet" and in the Belarusian-Ukrainian portable ATGM "Skif"

                    The problem of electric vehicles in the battery. Until the problems associated with them are resolved - capacity, price, charging time, they will remain expensive toys.
                  2. lelikas
                    lelikas 26 October 2013 22: 00
                    +6
                    It's not hard to argue - it's useless;)
                    For example, I believe in the future of electric vehicles, but I also believe in the future of all oil companies
                    which means electric cars will appear as soon as the oil runs out.
            2. Yemelya
              Yemelya 26 October 2013 13: 40
              +7
              Quote: Spade
              Really. The Germans proved this in the late 90s.


              The French proved back in 1917. smile
              1. Dezzed
                Dezzed 26 October 2013 20: 12
                14
                Renault 17 was weighty!
            3. svp67
              svp67 26 October 2013 21: 30
              +6
              Quote: Spade
              Really. The Germans proved this in the late 90s.
              And the USSR in the mid-70s, when designing and protecting the T74 advance project
          2. In the reeds
            In the reeds 27 October 2013 15: 48
            +3
            We have exactly two people and full automatic equipment that want to "Raki". I do not know what will come of it, they are planning 2018. The trend is that the tank is lighter mobile and, oddly enough, more protected, maybe a new generation of KAZ. The uninhabited module should be sunk into the hull, and they went crazy only for a shot. Who will fight?
            1. Felix200970
              Felix200970 27 October 2013 18: 17
              +5
              Quote: In the reeds
              gone crazy. Who will fight?

              Who, who are the boys with WoT.
  • Asgard
    Asgard 26 October 2013 11: 33
    -3
    Modern network wars do not fit there the tank ....
    So, this is an anachronism. I think that it’s not worth developing this direction.
    Russia with its distances and the Defense doctrine of tanks in modern conditions-DO NOT NEED ....
    More promising is the development of delivery vehicles, such as aircraft (helicopters)) missiles, and for individual use (ATGM, Needle, etc.)) infantry fighting vehicles and wheeled armored personnel carriers and improving tactical methods of warfare .......
    Well, intelligence itself, and the development of the electronic component, since ours promising enemies fonit in the electromagnetic spectrum (mother do not worry))))
    Communication - also Achilles Fifth of all conflicts (that I participated))
    Tanks in modern warfare cannot influence its course in any way ...
    My opinion))))
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 26 October 2013 11: 53
      11
      Quote: Asgard
      Modern network wars do not fit there the tank ....
      So, this is an anachronism. I think that it’s not worth developing this direction.

      Well, if only network wars ... Then yes. request
      Especially if the above-mentioned wars are fiercely virtual. wink
      But if natural wars - it is unlikely! Here, without tanks and another BTT, and without infantry, and without modern high-precision weapons, and without digital, highly protected means of communication and control, it is impossible at all.
      1. Asgard
        Asgard 26 October 2013 16: 26
        -3
        There will be no others ....
        The battle at Prokhorovka in the past, as well as the pitiful excuse - the defeat of the "Africa" ​​corps, the German Rommel - by the British)))
        The use of tanks in recent wars looked like a stupid destruction of armored vehicles with other weapons ......
        Inertia of military thinking))))
        Although (+) I agree with everything else ....

        Quote: Alekseev
        and another BTT, without infantry, and without modern high-precision weapons, and without digital, highly-protected communications and control means.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 26 October 2013 17: 13
          +6
          the tank will change, it will become a "tough nut to crack" for ground troops, aviation, and precision weapons; after all, whatever you call it, it remains a mobile, highly protected platform for a complex of weapons and as such it cannot become obsolete
        2. 0255
          0255 26 October 2013 17: 34
          +6
          The use of tanks in recent wars looked like a stupid destruction of armored vehicles with other weapons ......

          this is if there is no modern air defense, as it was in Iraq, and in any banana republic whose government is objectionable to the United States.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 27 October 2013 19: 27
            +4
            Quote: 0255
            this is if there is no modern air defense, as it was in Iraq, and in any banana republic whose government is objectionable to the United States.

            Absolutely accurate definition! good
            By the way, "it looked like a blunt destruction of armored vehicles by other types of weapons" and the destruction of thousands of Soviet tanks in June-July 1941.
            For the same reasons (air defense + lack of combat, technical and rear support - i.e. inability to fight)
            So, really, everything new is well forgotten old ...
        3. Uhe
          Uhe 27 October 2013 22: 56
          +1
          Are you not working for the Chinese for an hour? And then such nonsense is only in their hands;)
        4. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 20: 38
          +1
          The experience of using tanks in Syria does not at all seem like a dumb destruction of tanks by other types of weapons. Like Iraq 2003, like the Indo-Pakistani conflicts, like a number of conflicts in Africa, and so on. etc.
      2. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 26 October 2013 17: 54
        -3
        The war in Iraq was network-centric.
    2. Getman
      Getman 28 October 2013 12: 52
      +1
      This is one of the promising enemies of Russia phoning electricity? Wahabits chtol? They have little knowledge of chemistry and physics, sufficient to create a high explosive charge or another bomb
  • Dimka off
    Dimka off 26 October 2013 11: 56
    +1
    whatever you say, but a 152 mm gun as needed.
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 October 2013 21: 59
      +2
      Quote: Dimka off
      whatever you say, but a 152 mm gun as needed.


      There is another question, smooth or rifled.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 27 October 2013 19: 45
        +2
        Quote: Emelya
        There is another question, smooth or rifled.

        Yes, there is no question here:
        the most dangerous opponents of the tank are tanks. I do not consider helicopters, since air defense should be fought with them, not a tank. The most effective shells for heavily armored vehicles are sub-caliber and cumulative, which is more profitable to shoot from a smooth-bore gun. Pturs is again more profitable to shoot from a smooth trunk.
        And the rifled barrel is the lot of the rest of the artillery, except for the anti-tank one (the anti-tank "rapier" has a smooth barrel)

        By the way, here on the "Merkava" the smooth barrel is clearly out of place: they shoot mostly from the spot and at long distances, in general, in the role of self-propelled guns, and here the rifled barrel is preferable.
        1. Yemelya
          Yemelya 27 October 2013 22: 41
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Yes, there is no question here:


          Here is what the deputy wrote about this. ch. the designer of the Kirovsky plant A.K. Dzyavgo: "Rifled artillery shells have better accuracy, are less sensitive to wind load, are smaller in size, allow shooting on ricochets. It should be remembered that on the battlefield, infantry and field artillery is 50-60% It is necessary to increase the caliber of the gun.
          A caliber of 152,4 mm is necessary for the development of an effective high-explosive fragmentation projectile used against infantry equipped with personal protective equipment, as well as for an armor-piercing non-rebound caliber projectile of high kinetic energy, capable of overcoming the dynamic and active protection of a guided cumulative projectile with a range of 7 km. In this caliber, it is easier to implement nuclear warheads. The exclusion of armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile will increase the survivability of the barrel and exclude the defeat of interacting means on the battlefield with separating elements.
          The caliber 152,4 mm is the main one in the field and naval artillery and, therefore, will allow to increase the percentage of unification by the nodes of the system, and unify shells completely. Auxiliary weapons should be supplemented with a course machine gun or grenade launcher. The tank should become a carrier of tactical nuclear weapons. All armaments were controlled by the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU), i.e. it was not the tankmen who determined what the weapons should be on the tank. This was determined by gunners who had their own canons and who did not always meet the requirements of the tankers. What didn’t we like in guns? Firstly, tankers are not fully satisfied with smoothbore guns, and secondly, the 125 mm caliber.
          They switched to a smooth caliber in 1960. Then the 115-mm gun entered service with the T-62 tank. Subsequently, all tank guns were smoothbore. Creating effective shells was easier and cheaper if they were intended to fire from a smooth-walled barrel, rather than a rifled one.
          F.F. Petrov (until 1974 the chief designer of OKB-9 in Sverdlovsk, the developer of the main armament of the T-80 tank - the 125-mm smoothbore gun D-81) began to develop a smoothbore tank gun for purely economic reasons, under the flag of fighting tanks. At the same time, damage was caused to the accuracy of fire, since the shells of smooth-bore artillery are more sensitive to wind load and the ability to fire on ricochets was lost. At that time it was believed that tanks would mainly fight tanks. At the same time, they forgot that the infantry makes up more than 50% of the tank-hazardous targets, and tanks - about 20%. Naturally, it is impossible to get a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a large number of lethal fragments capable of hitting manpower that has personal protective equipment in a 125 mm caliber. Therefore, the caliber, of course, should be larger. We worked in this direction as well. "
  • Astrey
    Astrey 26 October 2013 12: 03
    +4
    A small series for large-scale testing is needed. The results of applying the GROUP of tanks are more useful for tank building and tank application than ONE instance. Quantity implies a breakthrough in quality.
  • ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 26 October 2013 13: 26
    +6
    I do not like this "neck" like a giraffe. Any more or less hard hit in the tower will break this giraffe's "neck" - if something gets jammed or breaks, the tank will already be incapable of combat, or at least - of limited combat capability. Indeed, a person's weakest point is just the neck, not the head or heart, which are protected by large bone boxes, namely the neck.
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 October 2013 13: 42
      +1
      Quote: ivanovbg
      I do not like this "neck" like a giraffe.


      This is about what?
      1. freedom2013
        freedom2013 26 October 2013 14: 32
        +7
        I also noticed - this is about the first drawing. Even in the memoirs of WWII tankers, it is indicated that the Tigers and Panthers were fired (if in the forehead) in the chassis or under the tower. And at the expense of ACS. The goal is to reduce crew. But it seems to me that getting even a blank will cover all the ACS with a copper basin.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 51
          +7
          The first drawing is a photo-toad
    2. 0255
      0255 26 October 2013 17: 43
      +1
      Quote: ivanovbg
      I do not like this "neck" like a giraffe.

      This "neck" is only in the picture at the beginning of the article. The rest of the photos of the T-95 (unfortunately indistinct and of terrible quality) show that the tank does not have such a "neck".
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 27 October 2013 14: 10
        +2
        Quote: 0255
        This "neck" is only in the picture at the beginning of the article.

        Found WHAT to discuss negative
    3. Fobos-grunt
      Fobos-grunt 27 October 2013 16: 32
      -2
      This, of course, is nonsense, nothing more than my bold assumption, but the `` giraffe's neck '' will provide a greater elevation angle, which was not enough for tanks in the mountains where ZUshki shilka and other anti-aircraft apparatus had to be introduced into the staff
      1. Getman
        Getman 28 October 2013 15: 56
        0
        Yes, you look! there the tank’s hull and the tower’s photojab were riveted onto it, what kind of neck is a computer drawing, where the present is only the hull from T-72/90
  • iConst
    iConst 26 October 2013 13: 27
    +2
    ... using optical, thermal and infrared channels ...

    What's the difference?
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 21: 03
      +1
      The difference is that these devices can use one source of information, but in different ways.

      "A night vision device (NVD) is a vacuum photoelectronic device for converting an image of an object invisible to the eye (in the infrared, ultraviolet or X-ray spectrum) into a visible one, or to enhance the brightness of a visible image." This is an example of using infrared. Needed for use of optics in low light conditions. Gives a picture similar to the one that you see through a regular scope.

      "Thermal imager is a device for monitoring the temperature distribution of the investigated surface. The temperature distribution is displayed on the display (or in the memory) of the thermal imager as a color field, where a certain color corresponds to a certain temperature." This is about the "thermal imaging channel". In fact, this is also a device with the registration of infrared radiation.
      "Thermal imagers are increasingly being used by the armed forces of developed countries to detect heat-contrast targets (manpower and equipment) any time of the daydespite the conventional means of optical camouflage used by the enemy in the visible range (camouflage). "
      Sincerely. hi
    2. Navigator Basov
      Navigator Basov April 28 2014 16: 31
      0
      Yes, there’s no difference, so, just in addition to fear caught up wink The thermal imaging sight, which is infrared, is an observational type device (tracking device), in contrast to the measuring thermal imagers that Skif writes about, of course it displays different temperatures with different brightness or color, but does not bind it to a certain temperature (as unnecessary, because there is no need for the sight to know the temperature, he only needs to highlight hotter objects against the background of the environment). In terminology, a night vision (observation) device can be a 24-hour vision (observation) device, all these devices convert thermal (infrared) radiation, which is invisible to the eye, into visible, and by what means - a vacuum photoelectronic or digital photocell matrix with software processing - the tenth question.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 October 2013 13: 34
    +3
    Maybe all these secrets with the T-95 in order to simply scare the enemy and confuse his spies? "Abrams" then go the other way.
  • loki565
    loki565 26 October 2013 14: 24
    +2
    This also did not go into series, although the idea is excellent

    1. 0255
      0255 26 October 2013 17: 45
      +1
      isn't it "Black Eagle"?
    2. Abracadabra
      Abracadabra 26 October 2013 18: 02
      0
      Great car was! But unfortunately not with UVZ, and therefore the project did not go through.
      1. Argon
        Argon 26 October 2013 21: 59
        +2
        It is interesting and why it is so excellent, share. I can argue that this "masterpiece" can be called a set of rather risky, untested, engineering solutions that give dubious advantages with obvious disadvantages. For example, the commander does not have the ability to diagnose the health of the machine (more precisely, AZ ) before the delivery of the BC.
        1. Abracadabra
          Abracadabra 26 October 2013 23: 45
          -1
          More protected from an internal explosion, due to the removal of AZ and BC in the stern of the tower, as now at Bulat. A separate panoramic sight for the commander Pine U, the same UVZ was installed on the T-90MS. Chassis from the T-80, which is better than the T-72 with UVZ. At least some tests passed, and T-95, a competitor with UVZ, was then and now raw.
          1. Argon
            Argon 27 October 2013 02: 33
            +4
            What tests are we talking about, "Eagle" does not even have a hull of its own, at least on a 14-roller (extended from the T-80) hull. VLD-mockup. Protection from an internal explosion by placing a BC in the tower (for "Eagle" the concept of a tower is very conditionally) on the "Abrams", as an example, did not justify itself (given that they do not have land mines). The large size does not allow it to be well armored, to ensure overall strength (which is especially important for the "Eagle"), about large "parasitic" booked the volume under the tower (with this arrangement), you think you know. Running is better, but more expensive and justified with significant torques, and speeds (more precisely, acceleration) characteristic of tanks with a gas turbine engine. The focus is on the diesel engine and the chassis will be appropriate, not worse, but cheaper (why compare with the T-72). A separate panoramic sight is yesterday's day, a panoramic sight on a common bus is today, however, we are considering the prospect and here several cameras with a combined panoramic image look much more attractive.generally brings the car to a higher level of accuracy in the use of both shells and missiles. And what kind of competition are we talking about, as far as I know at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the Kharkov "Boxer" fell into the "sediment", and the "Orel" IT-95 was planned to be released one to four, after R&D and testing, of course.
            1. Abracadabra
              Abracadabra 27 October 2013 03: 15
              -1
              And what did not justify itself in Abrams? How many crews of Abrams died and how many T-72s, in the same shelling of RPGs and ATGMs? I can throw a video of shelling Abrams with RPG 29, in both cases the tank did not catch fire! And where the BC pulled, the crew safely dumped from the tank. It would be the same with the Eagle! And what does the landmine have to do with it, when the problem of towers flying away is not BK, but propellant charges, which at the same second, when a kuma hits, ignite? Neither in Abrams, nor in any other modern tank, the BK is located throughout the BO of the tank as in T-72/90, which is the reason for the death of the crew. Running better and not important gas turbine engine, or MTU, on the T80UD, what, is there another running gear ?? Even developed countries did not dare to abandon the optical channel and completely trust electronics, and in Russia, given the backlog in the electronic industry, to deprive the crew of the opportunity to fight with optics, this is my foolishness.
              1. Bogranz
                Bogranz 27 October 2013 13: 07
                10
                You would be less fond of copy-paste. And then just literally chase your messages from YouTube. In addition, it seems that you do not really know where the ammo and fuel are located "neither in Abrams nor in other modern tanks." It is easy to find out about the losses of the same Abrams only after being guarded ... and mainly from the shelling of conventional infantry anti-tank weapons, tk. The Abrams crews avoided direct duels with enemy tanks (Iraqi T-55 and T-72), and the destruction of tanks of the Iraqi army (for example) was mostly carried out by aviation weapons. As an example, a description of the battle during the first Chechen war: "... In March 1996, a T-400B tank company of one of the motorized rifle regiments of the Ural Military District took part in the liberation of the Goiskoe village, which was defended by more than 72 well-armed militants. in combat formations of motorized riflemen, launched an attack from a line distant from the fighters' positions at 1200 m. The enemy tried to repel a tank attack by fire from an ATGM system with 9M111 Fagot missiles. 14 ATGM launches were made in total. from the vehicles to maneuver (both missiles were intended for one tank), 12 missiles hit the tanks, and four missiles hit one of the vehicles at once.However, after these hits, the crew and the tank retained their combat effectiveness and continued to perform the assigned combat mission. damaged turret of anti-aircraft machine gun, commander observation device TKN-ZV and prism observation device of the gunner. chili one at a time - two ATGM hits, there were damage to the spare parts boxes on the fenders, the destruction of the Luna-4 searchlights, and damage to the turret of the NSVT-12,7 Utes anti-aircraft machine gun. The rest of the ATGM hits caused only the activation of the reactive armor elements. Armor penetration was achieved only on one tank as a result of a "slide" missile launch and hitting the turret at an angle of 15-20 ° from top to bottom in the area of ​​the gunner's hatch. As a result of penetrating the armor with a cumulative jet, the electrical wiring was damaged and the gunner was slightly wounded. The tank retained its combat capability and, despite the fact that the automatic loader failed as a result of damage to the wiring, it continued to perform the assigned task. After the battle, he was sent for repair. On the rest of the machines, only the triggered ERA elements were replaced .... "
                1. Abracadabra
                  Abracadabra 27 October 2013 21: 42
                  -3
                  "You would be less fond of copy-paste. Otherwise, literally chase your messages from YouTube. Besides, it seems like you don't really know where the BC and the fuel are located," neither in Abrams nor in other modern tanks. ”It is easy to find out about the losses of the same Abrams just by GUGLIV ... and mainly from the shelling of conventional infantry AT weapons "

                  And I see that you can only google. How many have already come across a lie, although there are official reports on any Abrams. They took the same Abrams, burned by the amers themselves and pass it off as a bunch of wrecked Abrams, wrecked RPGs. In fact, the Abrams proved themselves to be excellent and the crews survived in those situations in which the T-72/80 crews burned alive. The fact that Russian tanks are able to withstand the hit of an RPG or ATGM is not disputed by anyone, but this is in the event that the propellant is not affected. In Abrams there are no propellant charges in the BO, so even if Abrams could be set on fire, the crew managed to leave the tank.

                  Here is the shelling with RPG29 Abramsov.



                  I hope you don’t need to bring the video of the shelling from the RPG29 T-72? Yes, and hundreds of destroyed T-72 over the past 20 years, against 2 dozen Abrams speak for themselves.
                  1. Bogranz
                    Bogranz 28 October 2013 14: 10
                    +4
                    The number of tanks destroyed is by and large only in direct proportion to their participation in hostilities. The success, as well as the loss of tank units, directly depends on the provision of their actions with artillery and aviation. Abrams' march across the Iraqi desert, PRE-PROCESSED BY AVIATION - NOT AN INDICATOR. But even with all this, the official losses of the Abrams in Iraq do not fit into one unit "... burned by the amers themselves ..." (nonsense!). Well, at the expense of the GUGL - so he exists to look for on it NECESSARY info. Okay, I'm a border guard, and I understand something in military affairs. And you, young man, "in which regiment did you serve"? Participation in "tank battles" at World of Tanks is not taken into account.)))))
          2. Getman
            Getman 28 October 2013 13: 00
            0
            And on Bulat, is it in the stern of the MZ tower?
      2. Getman
        Getman 28 October 2013 12: 59
        0
        Judging by the tower in it, the MOH was like on Yatagan, but otherwise it’s a T-80 with a helicopter engine
  • loki565
    loki565 26 October 2013 14: 42
    +7
    And here is what they talked about the latest samples, including the object 195

    It seems that pests have gathered
    When I was told about "EXCESSIVE SAMPLES OF WEAPON" my jaw almost fell off ...

    1. Lyokhin63
      Lyokhin63 26 October 2013 23: 41
      +6
      "It is better to be lonely, but sovereign and independent" is completely for, and the Deputy Minister of Defense is for armament at KOL. Serdyuk is the second.
  • common man
    common man 26 October 2013 15: 56
    10
    Well, since we have such "chiefs of armaments", it is fair to know that we have what we have.
    It killed me, "if the plant wants to declassify the T-95, she will declassify herself," like we don't need it, like everything that has been developed there. We will wait for the ingenious designer to come and build us a pepelats like in Star Wars. All the rest is another modification of the SU I T-34. CLOWN.
  • Dezzed
    Dezzed 26 October 2013 17: 20
    +2
    "increasing the level of protection by 2-3 times." as? by what?
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 26 October 2013 21: 58
      +3
      Quote: DezzeD
      "increasing the level of protection by 2-3 times." as? by what?


      The protection of the crew, due to the capsule, was meant.
  • Massik
    Massik 26 October 2013 19: 40
    0
    Of the entire article, only the penultimate photo was interesting. Does anyone clarify what kind of technique this is?
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 26 October 2013 19: 49
      +2
      A self-propelled model of the fighting compartment of a tank with a 152 mm cannon, probably Nizhny Tagil, the beginning of the 2000s
      1. alone
        alone 27 October 2013 00: 19
        +3
        what modern version of the KV-2.))
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 27 October 2013 20: 11
        0
        Quote: Alex 241
        A self-propelled model of the fighting compartment of a tank with a 152 mm cannon, probably Nizhny Tagil, the beginning of the 2000s

        The experimental setup of the 152 mm 2A83 gun on the T-72 chassis. Polygon Doguz
        (self-propelled gun carriage for running the gun for the object 195).
        http://www.rosinform.ru/2013/08/11/istoriya-sozdaniya-perspektivnogo-tanka-russk
        iy-tigr-t-95 /
        .
        From the same link:
        "....– 152-mm gun, which, with one shot, turns the enemy's tank into a heap of metal, often surplus weapons on the battlefield. Was there additional weapons on the XNUMXth?

        - Yes. This is a 30mm 2A42 cannon, like the BMP-2 or BMPT. It was mounted in the combat module along with the main weapon. At the same time, the automatic cannon had its own drives, both vertically and partly horizontally. She could not turn 180 degrees, but in a certain sector she could work independently. The 30 mm rapid-fire cannon is an alternative to the unnecessary consumption of the main ammunition. Targets that are not worth spending an expensive heavy shot on can be hit with this cannon ..... "
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 27 October 2013 00: 33
    0
    Pinned, first, "Photoshop" under the TITLE ...

    I hope it's a JOKE from the "military" ...

    Otherwise, it’s complete ...
  • Maximus-xnumx
    Maximus-xnumx 27 October 2013 07: 20
    +2
    Smoothbore 152-mm gun. This is strong!
    1. mixxlll
      mixxlll 27 October 2013 23: 39
      0
      One stands, one carry in reserve. Together with the repairmen, and during the battle you press a pause)))
  • Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 27 October 2013 11: 59
    +3
    From empty to empty ...
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 27 October 2013 17: 22
    +1
    As far as I guess, the T-95 is a laboratory for finding new solutions, and we will see the result of this search in Armata.
  • mixxlll
    mixxlll 27 October 2013 23: 38
    0
    Firstly, you will find a lot of direct space range of more than 2-3 km, and secondly, who said that "Armata" is being created from scratch.
    You do not forget that all our discussions are based on guesswork and conclusions, no one will ever tell you what kind of technique and purpose of working on it. It is even possible that the nodes of a completely different mechanism were running on these machines. You can even allow the same Armata.
    And then: according to my information))), already ridiculously know-it-alls of the Internet.
  • Ols76
    Ols76 28 October 2013 00: 49
    0
    will be a worthy answer for the west!
  • Getman
    Getman 28 October 2013 12: 21
    -1
    Quote: Abra Kadabra
    What's so funny about that? "Black Eagle" and its subsequent development "Burlak" were already more or less ready. The Burlak turrets (panoramic sight for the commander, ammo and AZ in the rear of the turret) could already modernize a bunch of T-72,80,90 and significantly increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of Russian tanks. In addition, the Burlak tower could have been an export hit, given the number of countries operating the T-72. And now, apart from plans for the future, there is nothing significant! Probably the problem is in the strong influence of UVZ, because the Ob 640 and Burlak are Omsk projects, based on the T-80.

    The T-95 tank was called the Black Eagle Armata, now also the Hammer project. T-95 The black eagle, which Omsk, judging by the tower similar to the yataganovskaya, had the MH as on the yatagan. Drugova Super-duper on it unnoticed under a camouflage net. Now the question is whether Armata or this object will be rolled out in metal or not? In Russia, 3 KB of tank building, and if Severnoye produced interesting tanks of the T-28 type, the same T-35 is unsuccessful, until a series of KV and IS Morozov fired them with the creation of the T-64. If the tank was created at LKZ, I could still believe that it will crawl out of the design bureau, but the fact that the car builders will issue a new car, fire. This is a tank for computer tanks, to help the object 140 both Armata and the Black Eagle and T-95 will look good, which to the ambassadors of Prokopenko in Military Review have no analogues in the world. All that the car builders came up with was the T-55 (and so British scientists cannot distinguish it from the Kharkov T-54. T-62 with a modified chassis to facilitate the work of the British scientist. T-72, a workshop remaking with T-64, so that in the war It was more interesting to supply the tank forces of the USSR, and the T-90, which differs from the T-72 by the year of manufacture and the easy re-setting of the bumpers of the cataphotics, fanariks like the VAZ-2107 from the VAZ-2105, the KhKBM rolled out the T-84 stronghold and scimitar BTR-3 and 4 BMPT- 64 armored car, Dozor. Is this not proof who made tanks in the USSR, but who was going to paradise in someone else's glory?
    1. mixxlll
      mixxlll 29 October 2013 12: 55
      0
      Tell me how long the trunk will live 152 mm
  • Getman
    Getman 28 October 2013 12: 24
    -1
    Even the photo shows that the tank body and the tower are not native. For the T72 / 90 body is made of metal, and the tower is made of computer graphics, drawn
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 28 October 2013 12: 45
    0
    I am interested in the topic of the X-shaped diesel. Yes, in the days of the USSR this was tested, but with what result? And who will take up its production now? At the same time, it is interesting to compare it with MTU.
    1. Getman
      Getman 28 October 2013 16: 00
      -2
      The X-shaped engine has been created since the time of 5TDF, just as it has not yet been born
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 28 October 2013 19: 16
      +2
      Quote: _KM_
      I am interested in the topic of the X-shaped diesel. Yes, in the days of the USSR this was tested, but with what result? And who will take up its production now?

      It has long been brought and run in several cars (and at facility 195 including)
      http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2011/09/blog-post_02.html
  • Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 28 October 2013 13: 13
    +2
    Abra cadabra troll and flooder. An article about one thing, and you with your lepard, anyone who understands more or less clearly that a lepard black panther with a price of 8-9 lyam greens is cooler and more powerful than any of our tanks, given the fact that 90MS is within 4 lyam. Talking Israelis TOURS 2 times farther and you write 8,5 km, well, our 6 km, except maybe 2 times. New CORNET ME 10km. And at 5 km from the gun on the move it sounds like a fairy tale with such percentages, MB shoot at keriser :-D. You figures google the relationship between the mass of the tank and the armor, the Indians fired at 90ki forehead without DZ, the results are very good. The fact that no one disputes the topic of lepard, but 90ka for its price is a very decent tank, the problem is that childhood diseases fixed the current in ms / am, and the warriors do not want it because they are waiting for armature.

    2 Getman, you fell off the moon, Hammer is the Kharkov Design Bureau, from the time of the USSR, they filed the project, 95 UVZ, EAGEL Chelyaba, + St. Petersburg riveted. 95 is the only one completed, but it wasn’t accepted, 152 mm are being built but the tank size is increased, and booking is reduced to zanchit, the ratio of Armor to volume decreases, + as always, our warriors are not striving for efficiency, give them cheaper, therefore, for example, 177 proreks were not accepted for service and they took 178 - 90k. 95 is a new fluff, new shells, new production lines, it’s necessary to lift everything from scratch and there is no dough.
    1. Getman
      Getman 28 October 2013 16: 06
      -2
      But this Wonderwulfia, from the T-72/90 corps and a computer-graphic attached gun, is the thought of the Soviet design bureaus back in the days of stagnation and developed socialism. In Kharkov, this is about 477 The hammer is called, and the T-95 is the superpuper of Omsk and UVZ under the name Black Eagle and Armata. But things didn’t go beyond pictures on the Internet
  • Russen barbar
    Russen barbar 29 October 2013 21: 45
    +1
    On many issues of armored combat vehicles, I have my own point of view. I like the Tiger and Typhoon, but the BTR-82A and BMP-3 are enraged. Undoubtedly, the 4th generation tank will be the most convenient and safe tank for the crew in Russia in its entire history (if, of course, all these ideas are successfully implemented in life). Reasonable division of the internal space into a living compartment for the crew, a combat compartment for guns and ammunition, and a motor compartment for the engine and fuel gives not only safety and comfort. It allows you to modernize, equip and change each compartment separately, depending on the wishes of the customer and the requirements of the time. I was also pleased with the principle of the location of the compartments: in the center under the heavy turret, the gun and ammunition - this gives a good weight distribution, the car is not overloaded either on the front rollers or on the rear rollers, the crew in front - in which case you can see the horizon perfectly by opening the hatch, from behind, like a counterweight to the thick front armor plates, there is a heavy large engine.
    How glad I am that Russian engineers rejected the idea of ​​making a custom-made scheme, where the engine is in front and the crew is in the back. Let the Merkava remain a "glorified fool" against the background of the American-Anglo-German-German-Russian well-proven design.
    Will this tank be the most modern in the world? Will he be a prototype of the future of tanks? Is the design idea inherently good? Oh yeah! And it says a man who considers the best tanks of the world Panther and Abrams.
    But do I want this tank in modern Russia? No!
    Why?
    In general, I am a supporter of electronics and automation. For example, I consider it very important to equip ALL army equipment (from tanks and self-propelled guns, to trucks and SUVs) with automatic transmissions by 30-50% of the share of the entire fleet. Subject to reliable design thereof. I believe that a walkie-talkie is not enough, and a whole computerized instantaneous data exchange system is needed not only from bottom to top from platoon to headquarters, but also from top to bottom from division to battalion and in parallel between platoons - air, land and sea, including three-dimensional graphics, video picture and sound.
    But I am skeptical and distrustful of the automatic loader. On the part of Western tanks it is not, although the USA and Europe are the homeland, trendsetters and record holders for such systems.
    Moreover, I consider it mandatory, if possible, in addition to electric or hydro drive to have a manual drive tower and vertical aiming guns.
    I see no reason to refuse direct viewing through triplex, armored glass, slit, spyglass, etc. things bypassing monitors and cameras.
    And finally, the T90. Although the tank and the long-standing invincible record holder for the discomfort and fire and explosion hazard of the crew’s crew compartment, it is reliable, time-tested and convenient for industry-government-command. The T90 is quite capable of fighting a battle with Abrams and Leopard, albeit in livestock conditions for the crew.
    Knowing how things are in Russia with conscientious supply, repair, maintenance and production, I have big doubts about the super-technological and automated Object 195 (T-95).
  • andrey86
    andrey86 5 May 2014 22: 45
    0
    Getman
    But things didn’t go beyond pictures on the Internet
    and you are sure of this and in general there are people who were present on the forum who saw live t -95
  • andrey86
    andrey86 5 May 2014 22: 59
    +1
    Some photos in the article are real 100 percent, I even know where they are made. And I saw such a machine on tests.
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 8 November 2016 19: 27
    0
    The article is interesting, but in my opinion it is not particularly necessary to scatter, we are not that rich, there is "armata", so it needs to be improved.
  • Cat man null
    Cat man null 8 November 2016 19: 38
    0
    Article - bloopers on bloopers:
    - the "reduction of the crew to two people" is declared, and on the diagram of the tank in the compartment for the crew - three places. One thing, you must understand, is a spare, such as a "lounge chair" laughing
    - "multichannel weapons system" - did the author invented this himself, or did someone tell him?
    - "The main difference between the object 195 and the tanks existing today is called the" carriage layout "" - sorry, but Armata does not exist?

    Well, and so on.

    But in fact - IMHO Object 195 has already played its role. All the best ideas from this project are already embodied in Armata. And to put on the conveyor also the T-95 makes no sense.

    IMHO, I repeat yes
  • Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 17 November 2016 23: 54
    0
    Quote: SkiF_RnD
    We watched different biathlon, apparently. Because outdated TURs for the T-72B hit (though not all) the target.

    The practical rate of fire "Leclerc" is 10-12 rounds per minute.

    Do you know what armor the T-90A has? Share with us, because for some reason there is no such information (and if there is, then the equivalents of homogeneous steel taken from whence come from, and by no means small figures are indicated in comparison with other tanks).

    Can Leopard2 fire 20 times per minute? You probably shot yourself? This is the most curious fact in your post. Because the ammunition rack of the first stage of the Leopard2 is 15 rounds. The rest are next to the mechvod.

    No, well, can he? Well, theoretically?
    Well, of course there aren’t so many shells, but maybe?
    Especially if the tank is worth it and you don’t need to aim?
    Shooting and shooting are two different things.
    There is a technical rate of fire, after all. Here’s a Kalashnikov assault rifle, memorable, as many as six hundred rounds per minute can do. Especially if you don’t aim ... And he doesn’t need any sniper rifle, up to 1 meters ... Six hundred aimed shots per minute, a thousand meters, through the rail, I’m telling you like the daughter of an officer, she spoke with motorized rifles. With the whole lieutenant. I recall that the average range for the European theater of war was about three kilometers. Well, if the German tankers are twenty rounds per minute, out of the fifteen available sighting on a maneuvering tank, with a probability of 000% fall on four kilometers, it is not clear why they have so many tanks to hell?
    And the rest of VET? One Leopard disassembles forty-two tanks for bolts with nuts, okay, forty ... Two times even a real Aryan panzer-gunner can miss ... Altogether 12 Russian tanks will remain rotting in the fields of the German people ... Unless of course the loaders get tired. And this is only the Leopards ... And what are they afraid of there? Why do they need these Americans with tactical nuclear weapons?
  • Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 18 November 2016 00: 24
    +1
    Quote: Abra Kadabra

    And I see that you can only google. How many have already come across a lie, although there are official reports on any Abrams. They took the same Abrams, burned by the amers themselves and pass it off as a bunch of wrecked Abrams, wrecked RPGs ...

    And you will not comment on me, for example, this photograph, which clearly shows the penetration of the frontal armor of the tower? Or is it not Abrams? Or was the Americans themselves digging for misinformation?
    I'm not kidding, maybe it's technological? Here is a side view in the tower, penetration is clearly visible, but in the front sheet?
  • free
    free 29 March 2018 09: 05
    0
    Along the way, he ultimately received the name "Armata", now March 2018.