T-95 Main Battle Tank

[Wolfshanze]

Russian tanks have long demonstrated that there is no real substitute for a 19-year-old and his arm loading shells as opposed to a machine. The 19-year-old oftentimes does it faster, he's a lot harder to break-down in combat conditions, and the 19-year-old is less prone to rip the gunners arm off by accident (don't forget the T72's autoloader was specifically designed the grab the nearest gunner, rip his arm off and stuff that into the gun instead of a real round).

This T-95 looks like a military disaster waiting to happen in my opinion.

 

[danrh]

Russian tanks have long demonstrated that there is no real substitute for a 19-year-old and his arm loading shells as opposed to a machine. The 19-year-old oftentimes does it faster, he's a lot harder to break-down in combat conditions, and the 19-year-old is less prone to rip the gunners arm off by accident.

This T-95 looks like a military disaster waiting to happen in my opinion.

However an autoloader does not need to be coaxed and cajoled into signing up to go and be shot at and potentially killed in a foreign country. It does not need to be paid and fed. A comparison of the amount of support required to keep one 19 yo in the front line as opposed to the maintenance required to keep an auotloader functioning might be enlightning.

Put simply as long manpower pressures continue autoloaders and other similar manpower reduction measures will continue to gain acceptance.

Dan

 

[Wolfshanze]

However an autoloader does not need to be coaxed and cajoled into signing up to go and be shot at and potentially killed in a foreign country. It does not need to be paid and fed. A comparison of the amount of support required to keep one 19 yo in the front line as opposed to the maintenance required to keep an auotloader functioning might be enlightning.

You're speaking of economic concerns before the battle, I speak of battlefield performance on the field.

The Russians cut the exact same corners you mentioned in every way shape and form to save money... the Americans didn't.

The combat record of the M1A1 vs the T-series of Russian tanks over the past 20 years isn't even remotely close.

Save all the money you want, you're going to lose the war every time when facing a well-trained force of MEN. The autoloading T-series has lost (badly) every single matchup with the human-loading M1A1 every single time in head-to-head matchups. That's what happens when you cut corners (we won't even talk about all the T-72 gun crews that have literally lost their arms... not a single M1A1 loader has ripped the arm off his gunner). Cheap is cheap, and it shows on the battlefield.

 

[danrh]

You're speaking of economic concerns before the battle, I speak of battlefield performance on the field.

The Russians cut the exact same corners you mentioned in every way shape and form to save money... the Americans didn't.

You hapen to be a US tanker would you Wolfie

The oft told joke that that all a soldiers equipment is made by the lowest bidder has some truth in it. If economic issues have no impact of the equipment fielded by the military then why are there only 21 B-2s, why is the F-22 production run being cut at 183 aircraft, why is the US carrier force being reduced etc etc? The stuggle for personnel is a fact of life among the Western nations with unpopular wars only exacerbating the situation. I fully expect to see autoloaders in the next generation of Western tanks.

The combat record of the M1A1 vs the T-series of Russian tanks over the past 20 years isn't even remotely close.

Save all the money you want, you're going to lose the war every time when facing a well-trained force of MEN. The autoloading T-series has lost (badly) every single matchup with the human-loading M1A1 every single time in head-to-head matchups. That's what happens when you cut corners (we won't even talk about all the T-72 gun crews that have literally lost their arms... not a single M1A1 loader has ripped the arm off his gunner). Cheap is cheap, and it shows on the battlefield.

Not to disagree totally but when comparing the virtues of various pieces of EQUIPMENT based on thier performance in battle please do not neglect other issues involved. You have mentioned yourself the value of a well trained force, what do suppose would have been the result in 2003 if the US Army was driving T-72s and the Iraqi's M1s assuming nothing else was changed? I submit that US casualties may have been higher but the end result the same. The training and support structures of Western militaries are potent force multipliers often rendering what would be a formidable force against a regional opponent completly impotent. The important factor is not the M1A2 or the AH-64D or the F-15 or A-10 but rather the overarching force into which these components fit.

Dan

 

[Wolfshanze]

You hapen to be a US tanker would you Wolfie

No... I'm retired USAF (20-years)... but I have something a lot of people around here don't have... actual in-the-field combat experience. No, I didn't carry a gun on the front lines or drive a tank, but I've been in several wars in-country, and I have a lot of friends who've been there first-hand, and I've personally seen the results with my own two eyes after the carnage.

I'm telling you... straight up Soviet equipment has a lot to be desired... it's cheap... and to reverse Stalin's old quote...

Quality has a quantity all it's own.

I'll take ten M1A1's over twenty T-84s any day of the week... and by your own formula, the twenty T-84s require more men then ten M1A1s... so your own theory is out of gas.

Frankly Danrh... you sound like a used Soviet equipment salesman. The Soviet stuff is junk, and you can talk about training all you want... our tanks were blowing the Soviet P.O.S. away before they even knew we were there, and their own rounds couldn't penetrate M1A1 armor. It's junk, and that T-95 looks like more junk.

 

[frekk]

Exactly Xeno. Even worse than the T-34/76 arrangment was that of the French tanks which had a single man in the turret who had to command load and fire the gun.

Actually this was typical of tanks of the period. The Panzer II (which made up the vast bulk of German armoured forces in the Battle of France) had the same arrangement.

What made the French tanks like the Char B inefficient had nothing to do with their design, which was good for the late 30s (obviously, it does not compare to mid-war designs). It had to do with the way they were utilized and assigned, which was also by the norms of the time - for everyone but Germany, which had created independant armoured units that were not just support.

In fact, the Char B outperformed German tanks and usually defeated them in frontal engagements, even PzIII's and IV's. Most Char B losses were to antitank weapons and artillery, not German armour.

 

[danrh]

No... I'm retired USAF (20-years)... but I have something a lot of people around here don't have... actual in-the-field combat experience. No, I didn't carry a gun on the front lines or drive a tank, but I've been in several wars in-country, and I have a lot of friends who've been there first-hand, and I've personally seen the results with my own two eyes after the carnage.

I'm telling you... straight up Soviet equipment has a lot to be desired... it's cheap...

Well at least that with which you have a first hand accquaintance ie T-72 or earlier etc

and to reverse Stalin's old quote...

Quality has a quantity all it's own.

I'll take ten M1A1's over twenty T-84s any day of the week... and by your own formula, the twenty T-84s require more men then ten M1A1s... so your own theory is out of gas.

Um now we've skipped ahead a generation. I'm assuming that you mean the T-80 and/or T-90. Just as todays M1A2 is not the same beast as the original M1 one has to assume at least some improvement from old T-72. Since the current generation of Russian tanks are yet to see battle against the M1 series I'd have to withhold judgement on that matter. Russian sources do claim significant improvements and overall capabilities but Russian sources are notoriously optimistic. Personally I still favour Western equipment. That is not to say I'm prepared to dismiss anything from Russia as a P.O.S. out of hand.

Frankly Danrh... you sound like a used Soviet equipment salesman.

LOL! Well thats certainly a new one, I wonder if I can put that on my business card.

The Soviet stuff is junk, and you can talk about training all you want... our tanks were blowing the Soviet P.O.S. away before they even knew we were there, and their own rounds couldn't penetrate M1A1 armor.

And that of course had nothing whatsoever to do with poor Iraqi training/tactics/intell/logistics.

It's junk, and that T-95 looks like more junk.

In your largely unsupported opinion.

Dan

 

[danrh]

Actually this was typical of tanks of the period. The Panzer II (which made up the vast bulk of German armoured forces in the Battle of France) had the same arrangement.

What made the French tanks like the Char B inefficient had nothing to do with their design, which was good for the late 30s (obviously, it does not compare to mid-war designs). It had to do with the way they were utilized and assigned, which was also by the norms of the time - for everyone but Germany, which had created independant armoured units that were not just support.

In fact, the Char B outperformed German tanks and usually defeated them in frontal engagements, even PzIII's and IV's. Most Char B losses were to antitank weapons and artillery, not German armour.

Well there is a slight difference between a light tank armed only with MGs and medium or heavy with 47mm gun in the turret. That said, certainly the method of deployment played the major role in the ineffectiveness of the French armour. The poor situational awareness of the commander due to his high workload did not help though. Off the top of my head only the French had such a poor turret arrangement all other nations having at least two in the turret crew with the British and Germans fielding the three man arrangement which became the standard. (Light tanks not withstanding)

All the major combatant nations (with the possible exception of the US-again off the top of my head, I'm currently without references) had independent tank forces prior to the commencement of hostilities. However in the case of the French they were as yet poorly organised and had little training in thier envisaged role both at the unit level and in the higher command. The British did much better though and the counter-attack at Arras was one of the few Allied successes of the Battle of France.

Dan