T-95 possible look

SRB · 11-09-2006, 18:39 PM

They are talking about 135mm gun?
Is there any 135mm gun?
I know about 130mm naval gun but 135mm?

RustyBattleship · 11-09-2006, 19:53 PM

Looks like a beefed up version of our T-92 light (air transportable) tank. The trailing track arrangement is different and the reactive armor makes it look like it has to go on a diet. But the turret is remarkably similar.

The T-92 lost out, however, because it had too many pockets to become shell traps. I can see a similar vulnerability in this possible T-95 model.

The M-41 was then chosen as our light tank but about 5 tons too heavy for air transport (as we had for cargo air then in the 50's).

Hmmm, did I say T-95 model? Maybe it is a T-92 model (I used to have one)with M-41 tracks and square skid pads from the hardware store pasted all over it.

starsiege · 11-09-2006, 21:00 PM

if i rem correctly there is no crew space in the turret, surely this would do much towards bringing down the silhouette of the tank

hmnn 135 mm is good! and the longer barrel would surely help

are those at12-at11 launchers on either side? the ones with red caps? if so thats awesome.

Anon · 11-10-2006, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

if i rem correctly there is no crew space in the turret, surely this would do much towards bringing down the silhouette of the tank

No men in the turret will seriously affect the situational awareness of the tank in a negative way, as well as causing jams and malfunctions to become a much larger problem than they typically are.

starsiege · 11-10-2006, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

No men in the turret will seriously affect the situational awareness of the tank in a negative way, as well as causing jams and malfunctions to become a much larger problem than they typically are.

what if the breech of the gun open from downunder? (in most rifles the breech is on the right hand side of the barrel right?) what if they had the rbeech on the underside of the barrel in that gun? so even if the autoloader jammed they can still manually load it!

as for situational awareness, did us see the extra ports?
also they can be augmented/replaced by cameras/binoculars mounted on the sides and the visual feed fed into the gunner/commander screen

Anon · 11-10-2006, 03:27 AM

Ah, yes, the whole rest of the world has it wrong!

An unmanned turret is really the way to go...

starsiege · 11-10-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Ah, yes, the whole rest of the world has it wrong!

An unmanned turret is really the way to go...

i was only suggesting!

Anon · 11-10-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

i was only suggesting!

Hey, apparently at least one engineer thought it made sense.

Me, i see no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

starsiege · 11-10-2006, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Hey, apparently at least one engineer thought it made sense.

Me, i see no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

what happaned to that prototype us light-tank that was suppsoed to replace the M1 in the future? i saw a program on the discovery channel about it..but then no other news came out on it. i think it has a 2 man crew?

Anon · 11-10-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

what happaned to that prototype us light-tank that was suppsoed to replace the M1 in the future? i saw a program on the discovery channel about it..but then no other news came out on it. i think it has a 2 man crew?

The stealth tank?

Cancelled several years ago IIRC.

bfng3569 · 11-10-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The stealth tank?

Cancelled several years ago IIRC.

That is one ugly looking tank......

as for the 2 man vs three man vs 4 man crew......

its one more than a pilot has?

depending on the sensors and level of intergration if the tank/turret size could be drasticaly reduced i think it would be worth exploring.

as far as the rest of the world getting it 'wrong' for having too many men in the tank, i think its all a matter of technology and time, as with eveything else, replacing people

starsiege · 11-10-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The stealth tank?

Cancelled several years ago IIRC.

hmnn no not this one...it was something else.. hmnn its barrel had a square shape..maybe it is this one..

RustyBattleship · 11-10-2006, 13:50 PM

Again, you can see the similiarity with the defunct T-92.

RustyBattleship · 11-10-2006, 13:53 PM

Please forgive the above. I don't know how to post pictures yet. I'll send a couple to TopHatter and he can play with them.

gunnut · 11-10-2006, 14:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsiege

hmnn no not this one...it was something else.. hmnn its barrel had a square shape..maybe it is this one..

Are you refering to the M-8 Mobile Gun System? There was also the Stingray by Cadillac Gage. They were cancelled due to low survivability against MBTs and ATGMs.

Personally, I think they would be great in low intensity conflict where sophisticated MBTs and ATGMs are uncommon.

11-09-2006, 18:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 402 Country:	T-95 possible look They are talking about 135mm gun? Is there any 135mm gun? I know about 130mm naval gun but 135mm? __________________ USSR EXPERIMENTAL SPITFIRE

11-09-2006, 21:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
starsiege Banished Join Date: 07-05-06 Posts: 521	if i rem correctly there is no crew space in the turret, surely this would do much towards bringing down the silhouette of the tank hmnn 135 mm is good! and the longer barrel would surely help are those at12-at11 launchers on either side? the ones with red caps? if so thats awesome. Last edited by starsiege : 11-10-2006 at 03:26 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2006, 19:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
RustyBattleship *Defense Professional* Join Date: 01-12-06 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 2,720	Looks like a beefed up version of our T-92 light (air transportable) tank. The trailing track arrangement is different and the reactive armor makes it look like it has to go on a diet. But the turret is remarkably similar. The T-92 lost out, however, because it had too many pockets to become shell traps. I can see a similar vulnerability in this possible T-95 model. The M-41 was then chosen as our light tank but about 5 tons too heavy for air transport (as we had for cargo air then in the 50's). Hmmm, did I say T-95 model? Maybe it is a T-92 model (I used to have one)with M-41 tracks and square skid pads from the hardware store pasted all over it.

11-10-2006, 03:27 AM	#6 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	Ah, yes, the whole rest of the world has it wrong! An unmanned turret is really the way to go...

11-10-2006, 13:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
RustyBattleship *Defense Professional* Join Date: 01-12-06 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 2,720	Again, you can see the similiarity with the defunct T-92.

11-10-2006, 13:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
RustyBattleship *Defense Professional* Join Date: 01-12-06 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 2,720	Please forgive the above. I don't know how to post pictures yet. I'll send a couple to TopHatter and he can play with them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)