Uralvagonzavod "Object 195" or T-95

via the same source
 

Attachments

  • 195bm.jpg
    195bm.jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 1,189
I wonder if anyone can get an estimate of the main armament from the picture?

The low profile is impressive (relative to the tall and narrow turret at least). This profile seems to tempt top-attack weapons.
Between the TOS-1, the Koalition SV, the BMP-T and this tank Russian armour is certainly developing an exotic flair.

Tuomas Narvainen's site has some interesting summaries of 1980s tank projects:
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/foxfour/ussr92/tanks.html

Given the era of the project I could certainly see suspending production and redesigning the vehicle. I don't think it is in anyone's interest (other than the factory workers) to see these creatures on the export market (especially when less advanced designs can be sold in their place). The sooner projects are canceled, the less people they kill, the sooner the prototype can be spotted in a museum and the more money that is available for the next prototype (which is developed sooner).
 
Avimimus said:
I wonder if anyone can get an estimate of the main armament from the picture?

The low profile is impressive (relative to the tall and narrow turret at least). This profile seems to tempt top-attack weapons.
Between the TOS-1, the Koalition SV, the BMP-T and this tank Russian armour is certainly developing an exotic flair.

Tuomas Narvainen's site has some interesting summaries of 1980s tank projects:
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/foxfour/ussr92/tanks.html

Given the era of the project I could certainly see suspending production and redesigning the vehicle. I don't think it is in anyone's interest (other than the factory workers) to see these creatures on the export market (especially when less advanced designs can be sold in their place). The sooner projects are canceled, the less people they kill, the sooner the prototype can be spotted in a museum and the more money that is available for the next prototype (which is developed sooner).
Click to expand...

it is 152 mm main gun and 30 mm auxilary unit.
 
And another tested in the same perioud project - http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/67833.html more conventional with combined autoloader.
 
tankophils have their 01/29/2010 almost happen...but so far they saw just certain parts of their 'tracked PAK FA' :)
 
Andrei_bt said:
it is 152 mm main gun and 30 mm auxilary unit.
Click to expand...

I never believed it - but I'll believe you.

:eek: It adds a sort of "one up" caliber comparison impressiveness on top of the more important features (eg. sensor suite and crew pod).

This certainly gives the impression of being the definitive "direct fire" tank. It is hard to imagine how a design could be improved (except perhaps increasing the guided weapon/countermeasures capabilities and reducing the caliber ;) )
 
I recall the profile of the T-95, possibly drawn by Steven Zaloga, published some years ago in a Polish "Raport" magazine, showing a crewless turret mounted on a T-80 style body. The Russian army would certainly benefit from a new tank, as even their latest T-90 is no match for the latest western tanks.
 
Removed lots of crap from topic.

Interested to see how much influence the design of the Morozov T-74 (Object 450) tank and its successors had on this. Uralvagonzavod have little track record in innovation in tank design.
 
Thank you, it is appreciated. It is nice to have threads which stay focused (and don't fall into ad hominem). If you want to split the Li-2 discussions out of the Fokker DC-3 thread - always feel free to pull out my posts.

Regardless of the armour discussions: The possibility of greater situational awareness from the new sensor suite (wider angle?) and a look-first, shoot-first capability make this an intimidating platform. With the cannon... I think these are the truly significant features of the design.
 
Sovershenstvovanie-88/Object-195/T-95

Source:
http://endwar.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:MA4585159/T-116
 

Attachments

  • 830px-Img052.jpg
    830px-Img052.jpg
    170.9 KB · Views: 1,279
  • 830px-Img053.jpg
    830px-Img053.jpg
    130.5 KB · Views: 1,238
They look neat, but like the page says they come from what is basically the Russian ' Popular Mechanics' which is hardly a good sign with regard to accuracy
 
Thanks Andrei.

andrei-bt.livejournal.com

Очередная фотография «Т-95»

Очередная фотография т.н. Т-95 всплыла в сети: На фото видна часть танка (остальная видна здесь ). Небольшое описание железного-капута, который чуть ли не 20 лет обещали вот-вот разработать - ссылка .
andrei-bt.livejournal.com andrei-bt.livejournal.com

Such a tease! ;D
 
New foto of T-95 (from Otvaga forum):
 

Attachments

  • 195-8.jpg
    195-8.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 509
  • 195-1.jpg
    195-1.jpg
    211.4 KB · Views: 526
Looks like there is a 30mm gun above the main gun. If thats the case its interesting that the Soviet's/Russians reached the same conclusion as the Swedes did in the Strv 2000, a big main gun means less rounds so a medium cal gun for engaging non-MBT targets is useful. Curious to see if this is carried through to Amarta.
 
Didn't the Swedes also discover that when the gunners were given the choice between the 120mm main gun and a smaller 40mm cannon, gunners almost always opted for the main gun, even when the smaller one was sufficient?
 
You'd definitely want a large secondary weapon (20mm or 40mm) as an alternative if you were using a 130mm-152mm gun - simply because if you can only fit a couple dozen large rounds in your tank you don't want to be using them to suppress infantry.

With a 125mm... I don't know. The advanced bofors ammunition the Swedes use is probably a superior anti-aircraft weapon and can also be used against dug in targets or exposed infantry. The 2A42 and its derivatives aren't that flexible though. It'll also be interesting to see if there is a grenade launcher on the new tank (I can't see any evidence of one on Obj. 195 - but then I might be missing it).

Anyway - this is an interesting vehicle! I'm getting the impression that the crew was moved to the hull in part because the increasing amount of sensors and active defenses meant there was no room left in the turret!

Is that tower up-top of Obj. 195 a radar array with hinging armoured doors? Or is it something else?
 
I'd guess it's electro-optics with armored doors to [protect the window. But that's just a guess.
 
Avimimus said:
You'd definitely want a large secondary weapon (20mm or 40mm) as an alternative if you were using a 130mm-152mm gun - simply because if you can only fit a couple dozen large rounds in your tank you don't want to be using them to suppress infantry.
Click to expand...

But IIRC the improved power of 152mm HE was one of the things that appealed to the designers about the large caliber rifled gun. As they saw it the reduced ammunition load was balanced by the improved effectiveness of each shell. To the best of my (limited) knowledge they never intended to change from their "traditional" emphasis on keeping a very large number of HE shells in the tanks ammo load for suppressing AT weapons and infantry.
 
Thanks guys. That would be a pretty big EO sight wouldn't it - or is my perception off due to the unfamiliar context?

Void said:
Avimimus said:
You'd definitely want a large secondary weapon (20mm or 40mm) as an alternative if you were using a 130mm-152mm gun - simply because if you can only fit a couple dozen large rounds in your tank you don't want to be using them to suppress infantry.
Click to expand...

But IIRC the improved power of 152mm HE was one of the things that appealed to the designers about the large caliber rifled gun. As they saw it the reduced ammunition load was balanced by the improved effectiveness of each shell. To the best of my (limited) knowledge they never intended to change from their "traditional" emphasis on keeping a very large number of HE shells in the tanks ammo load for suppressing AT weapons and infantry.
Click to expand...


I'm sure there is a logic to that. Especially if the goal is to maximise the probability of immediately disabling a known target.


However, I suspect actual combat environments usually involve shooting quite at suspected targets. A high effect round will still have no effect if there is nothing there to hit - whereas firing multiple less effective rounds gives multiple opportunities to have guessed right about the enemy's location. This is just my guess of course. But it is plausible that Russian attitudes after Grozny may be quite different than those developed from the experience of Desert Storm.
 
compared to this Kharkov design, the turret seems huge.
 

Attachments

  • 1580587_original.jpg
    1580587_original.jpg
    455.7 KB · Views: 123
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the current trend of newer Russian AFV: going bigger. That is the right way as now a day, automated sensors could detect better, especially from above (UAVs) and FCS is so good that a low silhouette AFV does not have much value. You want active camouflage (RAM, IR) or more armor rather than going smaller. With current technology, whoever shoots first will be detected, and be shot back.

Adding to that, a big AFV can carry more ammo and take higher risk shoot at longer range with lower hit probability, while smaller AFV must use ammo more carefully. This actually increases the range of the gun.
 
Quoting Alexander Yartsev from RenderDock Studio:
This model was engineered by Alex Yartsev using of existing photos as well as references from its processor (object 187) and successor (T-14 Armata) as well as knowledge in combat vehicles.
Click to expand...

Also, globalsecurity made a page about it: Objekt 195 / T-95 MBT. Unfortunately, the two resources linked in their page are not online any more. The article ends with "Data on the experimental tank are inaccurate and based on publications in the press, as well as on probability estimates."
 
Perhaps Alexander, according to the Russian tradition, "laid the straw." He said this so that there would be fewer questions from the "relevant authorities" to him
 
paralay said:
Perhaps Alexander, according to the Russian tradition, "laid the straw." He said this so that there would be fewer questions from the "relevant authorities" to him
Click to expand...
In the various pictures he shared in this link, he explains on what and how he speculate for recreating his version of Objekt 195. Has he's quite transparent on the topic, I don't think has "secret information". Is there any soviet/russian tank specialist on this forum who can give advice on the Alexander Yartsev speculation?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom