T-95 vs M1A2

**Dragoon** · 17 Aug 04,, 04:26

Mach 6+.... that is pretty close to most cannon rounds, that doesn't leave a lot of time to pop smoke or supress the gunner.

It sure would be a bad day to be a tanker with that thing coming at you.

Dragoon

**bison24** · 19 Aug 04,, 01:58

So some of you actually think T-95 would be inferior to abrams when comparing abrams to T-90 or T-80U is still very much open?

Few things:
•T-95 has 3rd gen Kaktus ERA, rather than older Kontakt-5. Probably a smart armor (controlled plasma jet).
•Its FCS should include radar, etc. Not some shitty T-72 type fsc that has trouble hitting at 800 meters.
•The Kornet's penetration is 1400mm. 152mm. 152mm gun. Gun-launched missile from there should have similar preformance. Wouldnt want to be in an abrams when that hits.
•Current russian APFDS can destroy abrams with a frontal hit at 2km anyways.

**axl** · 19 Aug 04,, 05:39

i would like to know where you get your information from. do you know something about tanks at all?

**Fury** · 19 Aug 04,, 08:35

Originally Posted by bison24

Wouldnt want to be in an abrams when that hits.

Me neither, but I would much rather be inside abrams than T-90 when such missile hits.

**axl** · 19 Aug 04,, 08:44

please keep in mind that the kornet is a 125mm missile with shaped charge. penetration should be around 1m rha. but that says nothing about how it would penetrate abrams or t-90 or so.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**OddBall** · 19 Aug 04,, 09:27

Originally Posted by axl

i would like to know where you get your information from. do you know something about tanks at all?

No he doesn't. He makes things up. I'd like to introduce you all to bison24. He's the #1 Russian equipment nuthugger in the world, not only does he know nothing at all about anything concerning military, he lies and makes things up to justify his never-ending love for Soviet crap. In fact I think the mods would do us all a favor if they just banned this guy straight away but I know you guys have to follow the rules, unlike the mods in the forum where he comes from.

**Fury** · 19 Aug 04,, 09:28

Perhaps Im missing something but I don't see the benefits of tank gun launched ATGMs over standard cannon rounds, AT-11 Refleks that is fired from T90 main gun has effective range of nearly 5km but the flight time to it is about 15 seconds and alot can happen in 15 seconds. It consumes time just to load the damn missile into the tube and not many are carried inside a tank anyway.
From what I know the russians developed the tank gun missile system because they weren't satisfied to the accuracy of their 125mm tank main gun at long distances. i think the first time that kind of missile was used in T-62, 115mm gun and in my opinion the T-62 was the best tank of its time.
Now about the supposed T-95, the 152mm main cannon is as big as an artillery gun, how are they going to load the turret with 152mm rounds and missiles

**OddBall** · 19 Aug 04,, 09:32

Originally Posted by Fury

From what I know the russians developed the tank gun missile system because they weren't satisfied to the accuracy of their 125mm tank main gun at long distances.

You are right, it was both accuracy and performance that they weren't satisfied in. They knew they were behind in both so they had to develop a system that gave them a range advantage.

**axl** · 19 Aug 04,, 10:43

but there are good things:

first of all russian tanks are able to attack targets (including moving ones and helicopters) at ranges up to 5.000m. the penetration of the round stays the same all over the flight path. the accuracy depends only on the gunner's skills and it is pretty easy to use (a friend told me that once he did a presentation where a totally unscilled school girl fired the missile and hit a stationary target). as the atgm is using a small charge there is nearly no muzzle flash or smoke. so the enemy might not even know that something is comming it's way. moreover most modern tanks will not observe targets on that range. yes the atgm is slow, but that is the same for all. i would prefere to be able to attack a target successfully at ranges larger than the effective combat range of 2.500m (as it is for all modern tanks). sure tanks can fire on bigger ranges, but the hit propability get's extremely small. there are always reports of tanks which hit a target at whatever range. those reports never say how many tries they needed to do that or how many other guys tried the same and failed or even that the target was not moving.

the loading of the atgm does not take longer than a normal round.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**axl** · 19 Aug 04,, 11:37

Originally Posted by Fury

Now about the supposed T-95, the 152mm main cannon is as big as an artillery gun, how are they going to load the turret with 152mm rounds and missiles

20 or 30 years ago the soviets did some tests with such a caliber. they found out fast enough that is no good and that they should stay with a smaller one.
when some years ago the rumours about the t-95 came, somebody somewhen just brought up the theory that this design could be equipped with a larger caliber like 135 or even 152mm. over the years this became "the t-95 is equipped with a 152mm gun". but so far there is no t-95 and also no 152mm gun. and the russians are not stupid enough to go for it. it would bring extreme costs to develop and field it (think about the logistics). the tank needs to be larger to handle enough rounds inside (that is your point), but also to cope with the mass/size/recoil impulse of this gun. moreover the energy efficiency of such a round would be extremely bad. it would need more energy input to come even to the same muzzle energy as a 125mm one. okay, there would be space to put much more energy (larger caliber/charge), but for what? today tanks fire apfsds rounds which are already sub caliber. when somebody would go for a larger caliber it would not really help. he would first of all need to use larger sabots to fill the diameter. larger sabots means more energy to accelerate this useless mass. you can add a stronger charge. but the stronger charge means more pressure on the rear fins of the penertrator. so they have to strengthen the fins, which means more mass at the rear of the penetrator. this addirional mass is not used for the penetration process. it increases the air drag and changes the center of gravity. so we have to add more mass to the rest of the penetrator, meaning that we need again more energy to accelerate it...and so on. it's not done by simply increasing the caliber of the gun.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**Fury** · 19 Aug 04,, 11:43

Originally Posted by axl

the loading of the atgm does not take longer than a normal round.

Really? first of all you would have to disengage the autoloader, right. Then the gunner takes the missile and as I understand it comes in two separate pieces, put the warhead in and then the rest of it I don't know how this happens exactly but it sure isn't faster than loading standard cannon round by a human loader or autoloader.

**OddBall** · 19 Aug 04,, 11:57

Originally Posted by Fury

Really? first of all you would have to disengage the autoloader, right. Then the gunner takes the missile and as I understand it comes in two separate pieces, put the warhead in and then the rest of it I don't know how this happens exactly but it sure isn't faster than loading standard cannon round by a human loader or autoloader.

Actually the missiles are stored in the carousel and loaded into the gun like any regular round, so it takes the same time.

**axl** · 19 Aug 04,, 12:03

Originally Posted by OddBall

Actually the missiles are stored in the carousel and loaded into the gun like any regular round, so it takes the same time.

right

**Fury** · 19 Aug 04,, 15:35

Originally Posted by OddBall

Actually the missiles are stored in the carousel and loaded into the gun like any regular round, so it takes the same time.

And how do you know, finnish T-72s don't fire missiles or do they?

**OddBall** · 19 Aug 04,, 15:51

Originally Posted by Fury

And how do you know, finnish T-72s don't fire missiles or do they?

No they don't, but I am good at knowing stuff.

Thread: T-95 vs M1A2

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)

M1A2 vs T-80U

M1A2 In Iraq against RPG-7

M1A2 vs Challenger2

M1A2 vs. Leopard 2

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions