SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)
-
This one I think is dated......compared to Spike.Originally posted by mrblitzer21:TOW missiles are an option..
Flight time out to range is too long. Wire guided, I believe SACLOS too. No fire and forget. Makes firing platform more vulnerable.
But who's to say what is obsolete or not?! Software in the SAF soldier will adapt and overcome. -
This thread is still here? WOah.
-
Does anyone have updated infos of T-94 or 95? The extracts below if true could provide us wif viable options in the near future.
Russia develops new main battle tank
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
USDEFENSE.COM | Russia has a new low profile main battle tank, according to published reports, but officials in Moscow say the tank, designated T-95, may not have enough funding budgeted in 2000 to make the transition from development to production.
The tank's design, developed at the Uralvagonzavod plant in the Urals, was called "radical" by Russian Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev, who saw a prototype of the T-95 on a recent visit to the plant.
One of newly elected president Vladimir Putin's goals is to strengthen the Russian military, perhaps by boosting professionalism and cutting forces while modernizing primary combat systems and phasing out older ones.
While all of the design information on the T-95 remains shrouded in secrecy, one plant official told Jane's Defense Weekly that the tank has been created from whole cloth, not simply based on an upgraded version of an existing main battle tank design.
The T-95, if produced en masse, would succeed Russia's T-90, the most modern of Moscow's main battle tanks and reportedly plagued by performance and maintenance problems, though Russian military officials have dismissed those reports as rumors.
Nevertheless, Jane's said, the length and width of the new 50-ton behemoth is "believed to be similar to the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs (main battle tanks)."
The defense magazine said "the main feature of the T-95 is its radical configuration with the main armament in a small unmanned turret fed from a newly-designed automatic loader located below the turret." The tank sports a 135 mm cannon, which is presumably smooth-bored, and "is fitted with a new fire control system."
according to my sources the new revolutionary-designed T-95 MBT will mount a 152mm cannon. This tank reportedly boasts armor which is so strong that it cannot be penetrated from the frontal arc by our Rheinmetal 120mm cannon (which I have personally fired on many an occaision). This is made possible by the placing of all of the 3 crew members in a heavily armored pod in the hull, rather than the turret as is the case on conventional tanks. The prototypes of this tank were first sighted in 1994, but it has been in the planning stages for much longer. Actually, all Russian MBTs now in service boast ERA armor packs which they claim are proof against 120mm cannon fire in the frontal arc.
The big difference with the T-95 is that has thick top-attack armor to enable it to defeat top-attack missiles like the Javelin, which with the abolition of our tank forces will be our most powerful anti-tank weapon in service after 2012. Of course, the tank can be expected to mount a follow on of the excellent ARENA top-attack missile defense systems as all modern Russian tanks use today. The US was rumored to be attempting to purchase this defense system from the Russians for its Abrams tanks, but with Shinseki's foolish plan to abolish the US tank fleet, this will probably not happen.
We can all thank General Shinseki and his boss Bill Clinton for implementing their radical and insane plan to abolish all of our excellent M-1 Abrams tanks and all other tracked vehicles from the Army by 2012 and replace them with armored cars, which are lightly armed and armored. If this plan is implemented by a President Bush-Gore as I suspect then the Russian tanks will essentially and most ominously be impervious to US anti-tank fire.
Personally, I think the Russkies are going to kick our buttes in the first post 2012 US-Russia war. I can see it now--our brave LAV troopers with their 25mm peashooters staring down the barrel of the T-95's 152mm gun/missile launcher only to be unexpectedly dispatched by the Russian tanks HMG AP rounds as the Russians refuse to waste a 152 round on so puny and non-existent a threat.
1 Posted on 04/21/2000 06:02:30 PDT by rightwing2 -
another extract:
Nizhny Tagil New Main Battle Tank
Is this what it looks like?
A new MBT was developed by V. Potkin's design team in Nizhny Tagil, at the Uralvagonzavod Plant where all the latest Russian tanks except the T-80 were manufactured.
This vehicle is intended to become the new Russian MBT and was planned to enter service in 1994, but due to lack of financing it is still on the testing grounds (according to some reports it has cleared the testing phase around March 1999). As a result, the Russian Army is stuck with the obsolete designs of T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90 line for much longer than it wishes.
The MBT doesn't yet have any lofty name and hides behind some obscure "ob'ekt" designation. In March 2000 the Defense Minister Igor Sergeev, while visiting Nizhny Tagil, said that Russia now "has a new T-95 tank" referring to the MBT being discussed here. It is unclear if this means that the vehicle is finally fielded (as only a fielded vehicle may get T-95 designation), or he just used the term that is sufficiently known in the West to avoid getting into details.
I could find very little about this vehicle, because it is all classified data. Here is the precious little I could gather, thanks mostly to Col. Viktor Mourakhovsky.
Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull.
A unique drivetrain suspension system is being tested on this tank that to a certain extent extinguishes the hull vibrations and stabilizes its position.
The tank still remains in Class 50 (i.e. it weighs 50 tons) and it shall have an even smaller silhouette than the modern Russian MBTs.
The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher. The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved. I could not, unfortunately, learn how the caliber increase is going to influence ammunition allowance and rate of fire.
This gun shall be located in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it. This is likely to increase survivability and lower the silhouette even further.
The fire control system will be multi-channel (optical + thermal + IR + laser + radar).
The carousel autoloader goes away.
According to plans the crew will consist of a 3 man combat structure and one mechanic (not unlike the air force crew structure), who will be responsible for vehicle maintenance and will reside in a battalion service and repair company.
armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html -
Offiical / best source go to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm
for arm chair experts
Try http://www.tank-net.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002070.html
Nasty forum, not for the counterstrike crowd.
[/url] -
Hey when i was shopping for model kits in the Suntec city model shop this guy told me that the SAF was reviewing the Frencg LeClerc tank, Dun noe it was true or not anyway I like the tank though, very futuristic-looking
-
Our so called Future MBT should have a 120mm Oto Melara turret with a Bionix Chassis.But source close to the program disclosed that this effort has run into difficulties-notably with the suspension and automotive systems-resulting the weight and recoil of the italyian turret.
Logon to International Defense Digest.Its no longer a secret as you can view them all in the internet. -
got url?
-
On the new forum:Originally posted by Caesar95:got url?
http://s8.invisionfree.com/Military_Nuts/index.php?showtopic=7 -
Hi everyone. This thread dead for so long?
FYI, I got it from network54.com/forum:
The actual number of Centurians is closer to 100-120 vehicles according to London`s Institute of strategic studies(2000). I have no confirmation on the M60s. The centurians are often mistaken for M60s. But the majority of the Centurians are obviously in storage reserve with Singapore rumoured using another tank from a certain country in the middle east in its place. Singapore will not acknowledge this of course.
I don`t know why the book puts the number at 12 tanks.It`s clearly more than 12. It`s possible Singapore made another purchase of tanks in the past to complement or replace the older Centurians and the 12 were the only ones in service then; with the rest in storage. And that the latter are the m60s
-
This thread has been "transferred" to the new military nuts forum.Originally posted by Manager433:Hi everyone. This thread dead for so long?
FYI, I got it from network54.com/forum:
The actual number of Centurians is closer to 100-120 vehicles according to London`s Institute of strategic studies(2000). I have no confirmation on the M60s. The centurians are often mistaken for M60s. But the majority of the Centurians are obviously in storage reserve with Singapore rumoured using another tank from a certain country in the middle east in its place. Singapore will not acknowledge this of course.
I don`t know why the book puts the number at 12 tanks.It`s clearly more than 12. It`s possible Singapore made another purchase of tanks in the past to complement or replace the older Centurians and the 12 were the only ones in service then; with the rest in storage. And that the latter are the m60s
Most books that list Singapore as using the M60 tanks (a mistake) - are actually referring to the combat engineer vehicles (the M60 AVLBs and CEVs series). The numbers are about right.
Personally - I do not like the world defense forums - its a shitty forum, where people compare "mine bigger than yours". Its disgracefull.
Try the tank.net forums for armour information - the guys there are pros - current or ex-military, as well as authors of books. -
Very true.Most people see M60 prefixes and they think those are the MBTs, if we "ever" had any.The M60CEV does possess a 160mm demolition gun, very short barrelled, good for blasting obstacles, hmm, in a pinch it might blow holes in walls for FIBUA.Originally posted by bcoy:This thread has been "transferred" to the new military nuts forum.
Most books that list Singapore as using the M60 tanks (a mistake) - are actually referring to the combat engineer vehicles (the M60 AVLBs and CEVs series). The numbers are about right.
Personally - I do not like the world defense forums - its a shitty forum, where people compare "mine bigger than yours". Its disgracefull.
Try the tank.net forums for armour information - the guys there are pros - current or ex-military, as well as authors of books. -
i really dont think we need any MBT, simply our terrian is not actually MBT friendly, recent conflict had shown that air superiority is goin to win war and tank are like mopping tool assisting the infantry.So guy, dont be too excited about wat knid of MBT we get, cos it will be a waste of monies.
-
I don't agree.... recent urban warfare in Fullujah taught us that US army had to rely on the Abram to provide cover for the infantry... they couldn't have taken Fullajah with massive armour support - and I am not talking about soft-skin Bradley IFVs or Strykers, but the heavy armoured MBTs.Originally posted by alby:i really dont think we need any MBT, simply our terrian is not actually MBT friendly, recent conflict had shown that air superiority is goin to win war and tank are like mopping tool assisting the infantry.So guy, dont be too excited about wat knid of MBT we get, cos it will be a waste of monies. -
After Reading some of the reports from Iraq on Stryker, it turns out that it is a pretty effective combat force in Iraq. Vehicles that can maintain mobility and command and control at the same time have reduced fatricide, collateral damage, killed enemies without being slowed.
So far, Stryker seems fantastic and is expected to replace the Abrams role in Urban warfare. Pin Point strike with an LGB from an F-16 circling overhead, is more than enuff to bring the house or shall I say, houses, down. -
The Stryker BCT is a pivot upon which air and infanry assets can be used as a multiplier to wreak havoc on a larger scale than a single force can acheive.
-
Well, the US have always relied on infantry and air assets to support their armored and armored cav forces on the ground. They just didn have the standard of mobility, precision, as well as command n control available under an "all encompassing brigade." Yes, stryker packs their own logistics, transport, engineering assets even. Basically, the all the assets function together to serve the brigade.
-
btw stryker armor...unless u think the kind of armor the M1 tanks uses...it's kinda lightly protected...so abit of prob there...and if the thing about the T-95 is true...and a country like China has access to these kind of technologies and mounts it on their hordes of tanks...guess we all can imagine the outcome...Originally posted by LazerLordz:The Stryker BCT is a pivot upon which air and infanry assets can be used as a multiplier to wreak havoc on a larger scale than a single force can acheive.
hopefully we do have at least a decent MBT tat can take them on...and wif the US army abolishing it's tank fleet by 2012....M1A2 abrams anyone?? -
Granted, the Armor is CMI.However, the Stryker tactics right now , invovles the tight coordination of aerial bombing runs with a dedicated CAS Viper for each Stryker Brigade.Originally posted by Lance_han:btw stryker armor...unless u think the kind of armor the M1 tanks uses...it's kinda lightly protected...so abit of prob there...and if the thing about the T-95 is true...and a country like China has access to these kind of technologies and mounts it on their hordes of tanks...guess we all can imagine the outcome...
hopefully we do have at least a decent MBT tat can take them on...and wif the US army abolishing it's tank fleet by 2012....M1A2 abrams anyone?? -
tat's abit tricky...there's no certainty in war..so if there's no air support..and it boils down to the use of whatever we have...how???Originally posted by LazerLordz:Granted, the Armor is CMI.However, the Stryker tactics right now , invovles the tight coordination of aerial bombing runs with a dedicated CAS Viper for each Stryker Brigade.
mobility isnt a veri good subsitute for armour protection...as for all i noe... -
True la.Originally posted by Lance_han:tat's abit tricky...there's no certainty in war..so if there's no air support..and it boils down to the use of whatever we have...how???
mobility isnt a veri good subsitute for armour protection...as for all i noe... -
so again...big tank+big gun+good armour+well trained crewmen=better armyOriginally posted by LazerLordz:True la.
-
I've just watched a program on the top10 tanks on Discovery Channel last night. And here's how the military historians and armour experts rate:
1.) T-34
2.) M1 Abrams
3.) Tiger
4.) WW1 British Tank
5.) Centuorian
6.) Panzer MkIV
7.) Challenger
8.) T-54/55
9.) Merkava
10.) M4 Sherman
The follwing factors were looked upon: Firepower, Protection, Mobility, Production Rating, Fear Factor.
Im not sure how old this programme is but the experts didn't put the abrams as the top tank is mainly because of its fuel thirsty gas turbine engine. I thought in the latest version of the Abrams, this problem is somehow eased? -
Weird, why isnt the German WW2 Panther in the list?Originally posted by Halide:I've just watched a program on the top10 tanks on Discovery Channel last night. And here's how the military historians and armour experts rate:
1.) T-34
2.) M1 Abrams
3.) Tiger
4.) WW1 British Tank
5.) Centuorian
6.) Panzer MkIV
7.) Challenger
8.) T-54/55
9.) Merkava
10.) M4 Sherman
The follwing factors were looked upon: Firepower, Protection, Mobility, Production Rating, Fear Factor.
Im not sure how old this programme is but the experts didn't put the abrams as the top tank is mainly because of its fuel thirsty gas turbine engine. I thought in the latest version of the Abrams, this problem is somehow eased?
The late panthers (ausf G) has all the factors stated.
I agree the T-34 too has all the factors stated.
The M4 Sherman is crap, all the variants has lousy protection and early variants basically shoots 'water'. Fear factor? Good for laughing at i suppose.
hmm -
I still tink its biased lor. How come Challenger ranked so low compared to Abrams. Just because its an American programme doesn't mean Abrams is better lor. Challenger also destroy alot of iraqi tanks during the gulf war mah and i dare to say their armour protection is stronger and more evenly distributed than on the Abrams.