Are we serious or we will go in to another absurd and myth about "stupid americans" that is just in the same low level as the same myth about "stupid russians".
I do not like such discussions.
I don't like such discussions either, but you started it by suggesting that because we don't know for sure that we should give the Americans the benefit of the doubt because they have been working on it for years.
They worked on GLATGMs for years yet the standard armament of the Sheridan was a 152mm HE shell that only it used. The missile on paper was excellent... in practise the vibration and conditions meant that despite being used in combat situations several times there is no recorded example of a single missile kill or even hit.
If you drop the assumption that because the US uses DU that it must therefore be the ideal material to penetrate current Russian tanks, I will drop the assumption all American designers are as unsuccessful as the ones tasked with developing GLATGMs all those years ago.
As it is possible that Russians designed something that others do not have a slightest idea how it is working, on what principles etc. the same could be done by Americans.
Anything is possible... which makes discussions redundant as it means either side can assume one side or the other has developed a successful countermeasure to the developments of the other... whether they actually have or not.
Please, I'am not idiot and do not treat me this way, I also have a knowledge about Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian weapon systems.
SO when you said that the Americans were not idiots and because they were working with DU and had experience with DU they would know how to use it to defeat Russian Armour I guess the connotation is that despite similar long experience with DU as a penetrator material the Russians don't know what they are doing when it comes to armour structures to stop said DU penetrators.
Yup... Americans also bought T-80U's, T-80UD's, some of them modernized to T-84 standard, they tested 4S22 Kontakt-5, ChSCzKW Knife ERA's,
How many T-84s in service?
How many T-90AMs have they tested?
For the purposes of developing future ammo they need access to Armata too.
The British also bought a Tunguska system in the 1990s including missiles... do you think British aircraft would be safe operating over a Tunguska battery?
it seem that similiar respect is non existant for western weapon system on the other side, I do not like this and it is really sad.
Don't confuse lack of interest for lack of respect.
I am not some fan boy who fantasises about the US and Russia going to war. Real war is not a game no matter what actions NATO and the US/UK imperial powers are.
Do You think I'am idiot without a knowledge? That I do not know about 4S23, 4S24? Even if I mentioned these here earlier?
You seem to think the development of such technology is a fixed race and that when the other develops a countermeasure the race is won.
Both sides start working on upgrades and new generation replacements as soon as anything enters service... a win is a temporary thing, and quite meaningless till the product that achieved the win enters wide scale service... assuming the thing it has defeated ever entered wide scale service in the first place.
Combination K was not NERA as other composite armor of that time did not use NERA in their structure, they were passive armors, NERA started to be fielded in the 1980's.
So you say. In the west if you talk about an assault rifle they talk about a german rifle developed during WWII... does that mean that nothing before that could be considered an assault rifle too? Something that perhaps entered limited service in 1916?
There is still ammo in crew compartment, in autoloader cassettes.
Is the rear engine deck in the crew compartment?
No. There is a firewall separating the crew from the engine.
The T-90AMs underfloor ammo cassette is armoured and separated from the crew compartment too.
There is no extra weight in case of western MBT's, they are from start designed with such weight in mind,
But all Western vehicles gained weight through their lifecycles just like the Russian tanks, in fact British tanks were know to be underpowered and have poor transmissions before the Challenger series paid for by Iran.
Besides this 10 or 20 tons less do not make difference, Americans calculated that vehicle to be easier transported need be to lighter than 40 tons,
Here we go again... We are talking about Russian tanks why do you bring up American calculations?
American calculations will be based on American transport means and support equipment and strategic situation and therefore would be completely meaningless to the Russians.
The Americans are mostly interested in air or sea transport for material, while the Russians are more interested in rail and air.
There is a difference in internal volume and crew survivability. And smaller size of vehicle in age of modern FCS is no more advantage, as we seen smaller T-72's were not harder to hit for coalition tanks in 1991 and 2003.
How do you know they were not harder to hit than larger vehicles would have been?
They seemed to be able to hit their own tanks pretty well too.
You said that a penetrations was statistically more likely to cause casualties, yet you do not accept that it would also be statistically harder to hit the smaller target.
You are very selective in your use of statistics aren't you?
If ammunition is placed in isolated magazine with blow off panels it will not burn out vehicle... are You sure You know what I am talking about?
You keep saying not to treat you like an idiot and you know about Russian and Soviet vehicles.
I assume you know that the turret bustle autoloader on the Black Eagle held 31 rounds of ready to use ammo and that a bustle explosion therefore would include 31 x 13kg propellent stubs of highly flamable material, and that at least half of that ammo will be HE shells weighing 23kgs, and of the remaining half a half of those (quarter of the 31) will be HEAT rounds weighing about 18kgs containing HE as well.
Look at western recent experience with IEDs and imagine an IED with that sort of explosive power in the rear of the turret separated by the rear turret wall or even a sliding door and tell me the crew will be safe if it all blows up...
Because there was no ammo stored outside autoloader...
Not strictly true. It was because there was no ammo loose in the crew compartment.
The primary problem is the propellent stubs, as the cardboard they are made of is highly flammable... a single spark or hot fragment and they explode. Obviously any explosion inside a closed tank will be orders of magnitude more dangerous than one outside the armour.
There is even a video on YT from tests, design is 100% sucessfull.
Well if there is a video then it must be true.
The west and Russia have different development paths for their tanks, based on their differing experiences and knowledge.
If you are trying to tell me the Russians are wrong and are idiots have you worked out what I will say in reply yet?
Hint it will include a comment overweight Americans...
I am here to discuss the T-90AM and T-95 and these vehicles have been barely mentioned...
Let me get this thread back on course by mentioning that the T-99 replacement for the T-90 called Armata is very likely to have an unmanned turret with an underfloor autoloader. The crew will be in the hull front under the heaviest armour on the vehicle... which you would have known if you had actually read this thread because we discussed this all before.
Why US expieriences with using their tanks is amusing?
Because I really think Russia will not invade Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon so it is not really relevant... Russia already learnt those lessons.
That is where the Drodz APS system was developed and the ARENA was eventually created... both greatly improving crew safety without adding 20 tons of armour.
Because they are americans and from political reason they are inferior to russians?
Nope. Cause I am not interested in their vehicles and didn't know any of them personally.
ATM Hoof will be getting ready to go and I wish him the best, but the soon the US "declares victory" and leaves the countries they have military forces in the better.
The US military has soldiers or bases in well over 100 countries yet not a single foreign base in the US... what if the canadians attack again?
No, I do not need to.
Based on your comments about ammo stored in the turret bustle I would say you should.
As an added bonus it might be good to remind yourself of the subject of this thread.
I highly doubt that these was T-90.
I don't care... if it was a previous model with less armour that was hit 9 times and continued operating and that only one (tank) vehicle during the campaign was actually disabled suddenly becomes more impressive.
Who cares about strategic level of fightings, on tactical level they were dangerous.
The US military killed as many Brits as the Iraqis did.
But MGM-51 Shillelagh was not a failed design, it had it problems yes, nobody says that not, but it was not that bad, especially for a time when it was designed.
It was total rubbish. It cost a fortune and while taken into war zones several times did not record a single hit let alone a kill.
The vibration caused by driving damaged the electronics and it simply didn't work.
In comparison an M113 with TOWs on paper is less effective (much lower missile speed and lethality) but actually effective in combat... without introducing a new 152mm calibre weapon into the logistics train that was totally pitiful with conventional ammo.
A very short range demolition gun on a vehicle that HMG fire could penetrate!
To be understanded correctly, I do not like if some person from west europe or north america says that russians were unabale to design anything good, but I also do not like when some person that is russian is talking about western military technology in the same way.
I agree... except where it is true like US and French GLATGMs.
The Russians first and then the Israelis proved it could be done and perfected into a useful weapon.
To reinforce what Russian Patriot has said, behave...
I find it is a good idea to not click that send button at the end of a message... sit and re read what you have typed... are you clear about what you are saying and could the other person take offence.
Also... like it or not... this is a Russian focused forum and this particular section Russian Military Forum > Russian Armed Forces > Russian Army... should give you a hint about what to expect.
Discussion in this thread should be about the First photos of the T-95 and T-90AM, though as I tend to wander about topics I will give some leeway.
That is not to say everything Russian is perfect, but the subject is Russian military equipment... not western military equipment.
This is not professional but is probably based on political inspired sympathys and antypathys.
I could care less about politics, I am interested in Russian military equipment and Soviet military equipment, and find discussions of western gear tedious. Get over it.
Well, in the early 90`s we tried them. And not only could they easily make their way across the "badlands", they could also drive through 1,5-2m of snow. In fact, they seemed to have been made for it!
Our top modern Leo2A5 cant traverse either of these areas.
Sounds like their mobility is not linked to their speed in reverse gear or their fuel consumption.