Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T-95 vs M1A2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T-95 vs M1A2

    From StrategyPage.com

    Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which tank is the baddest of them all? This is a question that will touch off a major debate, particularly when one compares two tanks head-to-head. The latest such matchup is the 50-ton T-95, which is in development in Russia, versus the M1A2 Abrams, the front-line tank of the United States Army.

    The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 “Black Eagle,” has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the “Black Eagle” will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.

    That said, the Americans have not stood pat with the M1A1. The 69-ton M1A2 model is nearing ten years old. Its major changes are not in terms of the weapons (it maintains the same weapons as the M1A1: a 120mm main gun, a 12.7mm gun for the commander, and two 7.62mm machine guns – one coaxial with the main gun, the other mounted on the loader’s hatch), but instead, the M1A2 is designed to exchange information with other vehicles faster through IVIS (Inter-Vehicle Information System). IVIS allows a tank crew to find out what other tank crews are seeing, and to tell those other crews what they see. As a result, crews of the M1A2 will have a clearer picture of the battlefield than their opponents in other tanks. That pays dividends. Having a good gun is nice, but you have to know where to point it. The American crews will know faster than their opponents due to IVIS. That means they are more likely to get in the first shot. The fire-control system remains perhaps the best in the world. When an Abrams fires at a target, it is probably going to hit the target. The results will usually be fatal to its target.

    The technical specifications do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality – and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and the National Training Center. The former is arguably the best teacher in the world. It brutally shows what was done right and wrong, and grading is not on a curve. The latter is the toughest training regime in the world – often American combat veterans have compared fighting in Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom to the NTC, with the caveat that the Iraqis weren’t as good as the OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment) at NTC.

    The T-95, should it enter service, might have a better gun and could exceed the M1A2’s 429-kilometer range (Russian tanks usually have a range of 550-650 kilometers when equipped with extra fuel tanks), but the M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system, and since it is already in service, it has the experience edge as well. It might cost $4.3 million per tank when compared to the $1.8 million paid for each of the 320 T-80UDs Pakistan bought from the Ukraine, but the U.S. Army, in battles like 73 Easting (where Eagle Troop of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment under H.R. McMaster defeated the Iraqi Tawkalna Division), has proven that the M1A2 can win when badly outnumbered. The M1A2 still rules the battlefield, and will for the foreseeable future.

  • #2
    M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system, and since it is already in service, it has the experience edge as well.
    Guy is not knowing what he is talking about at all.

    1st: T-95 is not revealed yet, so you cannot estimate almost anything from the noted above.

    2nd: Declared features of the T-95 are:

    Extremely small, fully automated turret
    Crew compartment "cocoon" fully separated from ammunition and armoured on each side.

    Thus, imho, crew suviveability would be unmatched.

    Comment


    • #3
      Chances our the T-95 will never be produced. Why would Russia want to develope an entirely new tank and a new set of ammo to go with it when they already have enough problems as is.

      That being said it will be very hard for a 50 ton tank to match the suvivability of a 70 ton tank. But we shall see won't we?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Praxus
        Chances our the T-95 will never be produced. Why would Russia want to develope an entirely new tank and a new set of ammo to go with it when they already have enough problems as is.

        That being said it will be very hard for a 50 ton tank to match the suvivability of a 70 ton tank. But we shall see won't we?
        I think that is why T-95, existing for a couple of years now, is not shown to the public yet.
        Company want to get a solid contract from the army.

        p.s. this is the best of what i've seen about it:
        Last edited by lurker; 25 Jun 04,, 22:36.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Praxus
          Chances our the T-95 will never be produced. Why would Russia want to develope an entirely new tank and a new set of ammo to go with it when they already have enough problems as is.

          What problems might that be??


          I think you might be interested in reading my post about the Russian armed forces if you haent already.
          Dont change fact...
          Scincerely, Napoleon

          Comment


          • #6
            What problems?

            LOL...

            I can tell you one thing i don't like about the T-95. It won't hold many bullets.

            That gun is huge, and that tank is very small.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by M21Sniper
              That gun is huge, and that tank is very small.
              That is the difference between Russian and American tank concepts.

              Where americans are putting more uranium and armor - russians are pressing small size, speed, manuever and dynamic protection.

              Imho, T-95 will have a full arsenal of dynamic protection: Arena, Shtora, Kontakt-5 ERA etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Huge gun = huge shells. And that'll mean even less room to store ammo. A T-95 vs an Abrams is already looking grim, without actually facing each other yet. It'd really suck for Russian tankers if yet again the shells just bounce of an Abrams.

                How will this Russian tank stand up to hellfires?...

                How will it withstand a beating from an A-10's GAU?...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  What problems?

                  LOL...

                  .
                  I was just asking about what problems he was thinking about so i could evaluate it, i wasnt saying it didnt have problems, but as far as the A-10 itll be like any other tank... heated scrap. i have yet to find a tank that will stand up to an A-10 period, its but then again can a Abram withstand an attack from the SU-27? but the part with american v russian inginuity, i agree america creates things that do different roles...o yes this will be for bombardment and this will cover it from aircraft... but russia sees this and tries to produce somthing that can do all things...though sometimes it doesnt work... then the rounds bounceing off the armor????? thats a very odd statement, yes the regular 125mm rounds did at times but please thats y they came up with the idea of the giant 152mm gun good lord its basicly an artillery round hiting it... and at a longer range too the abrams will ( if not destroyed ) in no doubt be heavily damaged. but i think we bragg about the gulf war too much, it may have been a replica (Iraq) of the soviet army and the tactics, but niether russia nor america new of the HORRIBLE condtion of the iraqi military, and i figure the same outcome would have taken place with out the airsupport america gave... the tanks and apc's where absolutly horrible taken care of the and the crews and infantry with little training dont get me on thier airforce which didnt even take off due to the F-15's flying around the clock above the airbase's, not only that but the iraqi army was realy realy unwilling to fight... the ones that did where idiots
                  Dont change fact...
                  Scincerely, Napoleon

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What separates the A-10 from the frogfoot and every other attack aircraft in the world is that marvelous 30mm 7 barreled gun with the 1160rd ammunition drum.

                    The idea of a large caliber gun/launcher is not new. The US used a 152mm gun on the sheridan scout tank and the M-60A2. It was a disaster.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      What separates the A-10 from the frogfoot and every other attack aircraft in the world is that marvelous 30mm 7 barreled gun with the 1160rd ammunition drum.

                      The idea of a large caliber gun/launcher is not new. The US used a 152mm gun on the sheridan scout tank and the M-60A2. It was a disaster.

                      yes yes the A-10 is an anti-ground marvel... but the sheridan wasnt the ww2 and the m-60a2 vietnam and desertstorm???? bit different times and tech.
                      Dont change fact...
                      Scincerely, Napoleon

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The Sheridan was used in Vietnam, not World War 2.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Sheridan is still used by the OPFOR(11th ACR) at Fort Irwin at NTC, and was used by the 82d Airborne until the mid 90s.

                          The M-60A2 has been long since retired.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Up to a point, Lebanon I think, in 1981 Isrel used M-48/M-60A1 Patton tanks. They were great, and there are still large numbers in the reserves I think
                            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I find myself wondering why we get all excited about new weapons systems that probably won't make it into production due to fiscal/political/technical problems.
                              The US has already lost the RAH-66 and the Crusader, is looking at the F-22 buy being slashed again and again...
                              I find it hard to believe that the T-95 will go into full production, and if that's the case, then comparing the M1A2 to the -95 is all rather academic.
                              Who cares if the T-95 is a wonder weapon? So was Comanche and Crusader...and how many of those will enter the inventory?
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X