The pictures of Object 195 ("T-95") have appeared in Internet. The almost certainly uninhabited turret is seen on them. High caliber (most probably 152 mm) MG, 7-rolls chassis, ADS installations on the turret.
The turret is quite huge and the top of the turret seems to be loaded with electronic CITV. One of the possible reason for this turret would be becuase of its automation and being unmanned plus the 152 mm gun would need a stronger turret.
The large powerful gun would require a large turret ring, but not necessarily a large turret. I would suspect that visibility for the crew would be a major factor in the design so optics and other sensors would be needed as high up as possible on the design to get as good a view... from all directions as possible so the commander way down in the hull could get a virtual view as if he had his head sticking out the top of the tank... which of course way down in the hull he could never do. They promised a turret with no crew in it... they never said it was a small turret.
The sloping of armour is intended to make it better at resisting penetration. I rather suspect that the purpose of moving the entire crew into the front hull under the thickest armour and the movement of the ammo into the lower part of the turret below the turret ring that the area above the turret is only moderately armoured and items contained in the vulnerable area are modular and important items duplicated so that a single penetration is unlikely to do much damage. Without crew to kill or injure, or ammo or fuel to ignite a hit on the turret will have to go through something important to have any effect on the tanks performance. It would probably be more effective to hit the turret with HE rounds. And Yes the T-95 has lost its funding and support from the Russian Army, but put it in context. The T-95 is like the Commanche... a cold war programme that became an expensive dinosaur before it even got into service. Technology from the Commanche however has already been applied to the Apache and will probably contribute to whatever aircraft eventually replaces the Apache in service.
Even more so because UVZ is the only tank producer in Russia with significant tank production capacity so even if other designers put forward new designs it will likely be UVZ that makes them... and for UVZ the T-95 used all the best technology they could manage so I would assume a lot of it will still be the best they can manage in 5 years time.
@Gautam, not, the UVZ developed the T-95 and is the only remaining tank maker in Russia, though most of their income today comes from making trains. The design department of their rivals from Omsk (that built T-80s) that designed the rival Black Eagle is defunct and has been transferred to UVZ so the turret bustle of the Black Eagle is likely to appear on the T-90M upgrade that is being tested now.
It still seems strange to not have sloping surfaces to protect the turret itself. Even if crew and vehicle as a whole isn`t endangered, protecting the functioning of the turret (gun, sensors, not to mention countermeasures) seems a laudable design goal. Even if it is judged that less armor is necessary, that armor can be deployed in the most efficient manner possible, e.g. slanted surfaces.
Although it should be said that top-attack munitions continue to proliferate, so that aspect is hardly ignorable these days, and sloped surfaces oriented against lateral attacks don`t do much against top-attacks.
It does open interesting questions for tactics if such a turret is introduced. If opposing forces have multiple ammo types and rapid reload capability, being able to switch to HE to take out the turret would be their preferred 1st shot. If it does sufficient damage, the target isn`t a threat and certainly can no longer accoplish it`s mission. But that just makes having a modicum of effective turret armor more recommendable, since even lighter armor with appropriate slanting, etc, would have high effectiveness against HE shells.
ADS of course is likely the name of the REAL game, though...
Put it this way... think of a truck. If you wanted to protect it with armour but of course weight is an issue... do you armour the cab that contains the crew and engine or do you armour the trailer? If you can only armour to protect from small arms you protect the crew and engine because small arms fire through the trailer is not going to take out the truck. It might damage some of the cargo, but the crew and truck are safe.
From what I have read about the T-95 it is supposed to have all sorts of sensors including radar and long, medium and short wave IR and even LIDAR sensors... the last Soviet tanks that were armoured like this vehicle seems to be was the T-10/T-10M vehicles that would be used as breakthrough tanks using their powerful guns to engage the enemy at stand off ranges were return fire will be largely ineffectual. I rather suspect anything that needs protection in the turret is protected or duplicated so that one or even a few shots there wont destroy the vehicle or "take it out".
Talking about aiming for specific areas to take out this or that is like saying the Abrams tank is useless because one shot to its turret bustle and all its ready to use 120mm calibre ammo is destroyed, or a shot to the turret ring will bypass all that heavy armour.
My reply would be it is easier to say than do... they have taken great effort to remove crew and ammo from the turret so why waste weight heavily protecting that area?
Sure... Acknowledging that protecting the turret vs. equivalent caliber shots isn`t an effective design choice is an easy decision to make. But wouldn`t it still stand that the most weight-effective means to protect the turrent against 12.7, 40mm, etc, is going to involve sloped faces? The depicted turret is certainly armored to SOME extent, so it just seems the same level of armoring/weight could be most optimally deployed in a sloped orientation, either upping the protection against a slighty heavier class of weapons, or just enabling lesser weight/armor to achieve the same effect as the depected turret.
Any word of a system akin to the `moving shot` misfire cancellation as seen on the Korean K2? Although Thailand apparently selected the latest T-84 Oplot-M in their latest tender, K2`s moving shot capability was stated to be seen as a discriminating factor which the staff regretted giving up.
Obviously I don't know what they were thinking when they designed it, but looking at the turret of the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle... the front, sides and rear are near vertical and very poorly designed with regard to armour effectiveness.
Obviously the priority there was just keeping small arms out so the emphasis is on internal volume rather than efficient use of existing armour by sloping it to make it more effective.
I think by removing vulnerable material from the turret that the priority becomes positioning of material inside the turret to reduce the chance of a single hit destroying everything... remember a normal APFSDS or HEAT hit doesn't immediately vapourise everything inside... if the armour is relatively thin like on a BTR the penetrator is just as likely to go in one side and out the other... any person directly in the path will have a hole through them, but unless there is fuel or ammo it is only things directly hit by the penetrator that are actually damaged. A bit of redundancy in the design and it could in theory take several hits without it effecting the performance of the vehicle... and remember of course while the enemy are firing they are disclosing their positions to the vehicles in the T-95s unit too and its return fire with a 152mm round will have an effect.
Igor, Read a "sad" news on carrier Gorshkov. The complete transformation of Gorshkov to INS Vikramaditya will take another 2-3 years! as it will be moved to Sevmesh to some other place. How difficult is this 'trip'?
T-95 needs a cupola to protect the main turret, this T-95 tank is incomplete. Right there, you have a "naked turret" it needs a sloped "shell" to protect the turret.
Does an M1A2 need extra armour around its turret bustle to better protect the ammo stored there?
A better question to ask is why make the turret heavily protected when there are no crew in it?
If the enemy wants to fire rounds into the turret let them... it is not worth the extra armour.
The whole purpose of an external gun mount and crew seated in the hull is to greatly reduce the amount of armour on the turret, which is the thickest armour on the vehicle because combat experience shows that most of the hits on a tank are the turret front... with an external gun a hit on the turret front is not a serious hit.
T-95 is a unique design, the turret is obviously naked, no slope armor on, a solution can be easily be design to make a "shell" like a -turtle shell- to sort of speak, which is bolted on top of the turret to protect all main components. This way it makes the best tank to ever exist on earth, it just a matter of thinking... This way you have 360 deg. protection of your gun. The chassis on the other hand needs extra long skirts to protect the tracks from the sides. There you get the real T-95 ARMATA machine. Engine should sit forward, transm. Hydrostatic, extra armor on the back of tank, wide tracks. Weight ~65 metric tons. Why extra prot. on turret, simple, you keep full integrity of machine under heavy fire. Piece of cake.
The T-95 is cancelled. Armata is a new design, and appears from comments made will have a turret bustle autoloader which suggests it might have a manned turret, but with the underfloor autoloader removed to allow the crew to sit below the turret ring which should make them just as safe as being in the front hull but freeing up the hull front area for other things like the engine or whatever. There is no purpose to putting a shell over an external gun... if the enemy wants to take the tank out by shooting the gun they can just shoot the gun. Or the tracks. The whole point in the T-95 with the external gun and crew in the hull front was to reduce weight by making the turret no longer requiring heavy armour... the heavy front turret armour isn't to protect the gun, it is to protect the commander and gunner. If the enemy wants to waste ammo shooting at the tanks gun or the tanks ammo storage in combat... let them. The T-95 will be shooting back at the crew compartment of the enemy vehicle to kill the enemy. If the enemy are shooting at the gun and are actually successful then the tank can drive to the rear and the turret replaced or be put in a new tank and sent back to the front. Extra armour to protect the empty turret is a complete waste... especially as the turret will likely contain APS and sensor windows and other bits that need to be exposed at the top of the tank. Note the latest proposed replacement for the Bradley doesn't have sloped turret armour either.
The Russian military say it is cancelled. UVZ... the makers, will use all the leading edge technology developed for it in their next tank which the military has named Armata. Think in terms of the Commanche helo. It is cancelled, but much of the avionics technology developed for it will end up in the AH-64 and some of its stealth features appear to have been used on a Black Hawk for Spec Op use, so will the original program is cancelled its technology lives on.
Same with the T-95... they developed a big gun for that vehicle... I doubt they will scrap it completely.
The turret is quite huge and the top of the turret seems to be loaded with electronic CITV. One of the possible reason for this turret would be becuase of its automation and being unmanned plus the 152 mm gun would need a stronger turret.
ReplyDeleteThe large powerful gun would require a large turret ring, but not necessarily a large turret.
ReplyDeleteI would suspect that visibility for the crew would be a major factor in the design so optics and other sensors would be needed as high up as possible on the design to get as good a view... from all directions as possible so the commander way down in the hull could get a virtual view as if he had his head sticking out the top of the tank... which of course way down in the hull he could never do.
They promised a turret with no crew in it... they never said it was a small turret.
Why isn't the turret sloped? Is this a preliminary design? And are there prospects to produce this? I was under the impression it had been cancelled.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this project (pardon the expression) defunct, along with the institute that was tasked with developing it?
ReplyDeleteThe sloping of armour is intended to make it better at resisting penetration.
ReplyDeleteI rather suspect that the purpose of moving the entire crew into the front hull under the thickest armour and the movement of the ammo into the lower part of the turret below the turret ring that the area above the turret is only moderately armoured and items contained in the vulnerable area are modular and important items duplicated so that a single penetration is unlikely to do much damage.
Without crew to kill or injure, or ammo or fuel to ignite a hit on the turret will have to go through something important to have any effect on the tanks performance.
It would probably be more effective to hit the turret with HE rounds.
And Yes the T-95 has lost its funding and support from the Russian Army, but put it in context.
The T-95 is like the Commanche... a cold war programme that became an expensive dinosaur before it even got into service.
Technology from the Commanche however has already been applied to the Apache and will probably contribute to whatever aircraft eventually replaces the Apache in service.
Even more so because UVZ is the only tank producer in Russia with significant tank production capacity so even if other designers put forward new designs it will likely be UVZ that makes them... and for UVZ the T-95 used all the best technology they could manage so I would assume a lot of it will still be the best they can manage in 5 years time.
@Gautam, not, the UVZ developed the T-95 and is the only remaining tank maker in Russia, though most of their income today comes from making trains. The design department of their rivals from Omsk (that built T-80s) that designed the rival Black Eagle is defunct and has been transferred to UVZ so the turret bustle of the Black Eagle is likely to appear on the T-90M upgrade that is being tested now.
It still seems strange to not have sloping surfaces to protect the turret itself. Even if crew and vehicle as a whole isn`t endangered, protecting the functioning of the turret (gun, sensors, not to mention countermeasures) seems a laudable design goal. Even if it is judged that less armor is necessary, that armor can be deployed in the most efficient manner possible, e.g. slanted surfaces.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it should be said that top-attack munitions continue to proliferate, so that aspect is hardly ignorable these days, and sloped surfaces oriented against lateral attacks don`t do much against top-attacks.
It does open interesting questions for tactics if such a turret is introduced. If opposing forces have multiple ammo types and rapid reload capability, being able to switch to HE to take out the turret would be their preferred 1st shot. If it does sufficient damage, the target isn`t a threat and certainly can no longer accoplish it`s mission. But that just makes having a modicum of effective turret armor more recommendable, since even lighter armor with appropriate slanting, etc, would have high effectiveness against HE shells.
ADS of course is likely the name of the REAL game, though...
Put it this way... think of a truck.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to protect it with armour but of course weight is an issue... do you armour the cab that contains the crew and engine or do you armour the trailer?
If you can only armour to protect from small arms you protect the crew and engine because small arms fire through the trailer is not going to take out the truck. It might damage some of the cargo, but the crew and truck are safe.
From what I have read about the T-95 it is supposed to have all sorts of sensors including radar and long, medium and short wave IR and even LIDAR sensors... the last Soviet tanks that were armoured like this vehicle seems to be was the T-10/T-10M vehicles that would be used as breakthrough tanks using their powerful guns to engage the enemy at stand off ranges were return fire will be largely ineffectual.
I rather suspect anything that needs protection in the turret is protected or duplicated so that one or even a few shots there wont destroy the vehicle or "take it out".
Talking about aiming for specific areas to take out this or that is like saying the Abrams tank is useless because one shot to its turret bustle and all its ready to use 120mm calibre ammo is destroyed, or a shot to the turret ring will bypass all that heavy armour.
My reply would be it is easier to say than do... they have taken great effort to remove crew and ammo from the turret so why waste weight heavily protecting that area?
Sure... Acknowledging that protecting the turret vs. equivalent caliber shots isn`t an effective design choice is an easy decision to make. But wouldn`t it still stand that the most weight-effective means to protect the turrent against 12.7, 40mm, etc, is going to involve sloped faces? The depicted turret is certainly armored to SOME extent, so it just seems the same level of armoring/weight could be most optimally deployed in a sloped orientation, either upping the protection against a slighty heavier class of weapons, or just enabling lesser weight/armor to achieve the same effect as the depected turret.
ReplyDeleteAny word of a system akin to the `moving shot` misfire cancellation as seen on the Korean K2? Although Thailand apparently selected the latest T-84 Oplot-M in their latest tender, K2`s moving shot capability was stated to be seen as a discriminating factor which the staff regretted giving up.
Obviously I don't know what they were thinking when they designed it, but looking at the turret of the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle... the front, sides and rear are near vertical and very poorly designed with regard to armour effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteObviously the priority there was just keeping small arms out so the emphasis is on internal volume rather than efficient use of existing armour by sloping it to make it more effective.
I think by removing vulnerable material from the turret that the priority becomes positioning of material inside the turret to reduce the chance of a single hit destroying everything... remember a normal APFSDS or HEAT hit doesn't immediately vapourise everything inside... if the armour is relatively thin like on a BTR the penetrator is just as likely to go in one side and out the other... any person directly in the path will have a hole through them, but unless there is fuel or ammo it is only things directly hit by the penetrator that are actually damaged. A bit of redundancy in the design and it could in theory take several hits without it effecting the performance of the vehicle... and remember of course while the enemy are firing they are disclosing their positions to the vehicles in the T-95s unit too and its return fire with a 152mm round will have an effect.
Regarding sloped armour on turrets have you see the artists impression of the replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV?
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle.jpg
Notice a lack of sloped turret armour?
Igor, Read a "sad" news on carrier Gorshkov. The complete transformation of Gorshkov to INS Vikramaditya will take another 2-3 years! as it will be moved to Sevmesh to some other place. How difficult is this 'trip'?
ReplyDeleteAny feedback from your side?
hello friend A lot of time noting new.
ReplyDeleteRegards\
Zoran from Macedonia.
I agree... it is too quiet Igor...
ReplyDeleteBTW Nair, do you have a source to prove there is a delay with the Gorshkov, I have seen nothing anywhere else about this delay you are talking about.
Dear Igorr
ReplyDeleteToday is 17 MAY
2 months have passed since you posted the last defence news
Hope you are well
Come back soon
T-95 needs a cupola to protect the main turret, this T-95 tank is incomplete. Right there, you have a "naked turret" it needs a sloped "shell" to protect the turret.
ReplyDeleteTo protect what?
ReplyDeleteDoes an M1A2 need extra armour around its turret bustle to better protect the ammo stored there?
A better question to ask is why make the turret heavily protected when there are no crew in it?
If the enemy wants to fire rounds into the turret let them... it is not worth the extra armour.
The whole purpose of an external gun mount and crew seated in the hull is to greatly reduce the amount of armour on the turret, which is the thickest armour on the vehicle because combat experience shows that most of the hits on a tank are the turret front... with an external gun a hit on the turret front is not a serious hit.
T-95 is a unique design, the turret is obviously naked, no slope armor on, a solution can be easily be design to make a "shell" like a -turtle shell- to sort of speak, which is bolted on top of the turret to protect all main components. This way it makes the best tank to ever exist on earth, it just a matter of thinking... This way you have 360 deg. protection of your gun. The chassis on the other hand needs extra long skirts to protect the tracks from the sides. There you get the real T-95 ARMATA machine. Engine should sit forward, transm. Hydrostatic, extra armor on the back of tank, wide tracks. Weight ~65 metric tons. Why extra prot. on turret, simple, you keep full integrity of machine under heavy fire. Piece of cake.
ReplyDeleteThe T-95 is cancelled.
ReplyDeleteArmata is a new design, and appears from comments made will have a turret bustle autoloader which suggests it might have a manned turret, but with the underfloor autoloader removed to allow the crew to sit below the turret ring which should make them just as safe as being in the front hull but freeing up the hull front area for other things like the engine or whatever.
There is no purpose to putting a shell over an external gun... if the enemy wants to take the tank out by shooting the gun they can just shoot the gun. Or the tracks.
The whole point in the T-95 with the external gun and crew in the hull front was to reduce weight by making the turret no longer requiring heavy armour... the heavy front turret armour isn't to protect the gun, it is to protect the commander and gunner.
If the enemy wants to waste ammo shooting at the tanks gun or the tanks ammo storage in combat... let them. The T-95 will be shooting back at the crew compartment of the enemy vehicle to kill the enemy. If the enemy are shooting at the gun and are actually successful then the tank can drive to the rear and the turret replaced or be put in a new tank and sent back to the front.
Extra armour to protect the empty turret is a complete waste... especially as the turret will likely contain APS and sensor windows and other bits that need to be exposed at the top of the tank.
Note the latest proposed replacement for the Bradley doesn't have sloped turret armour either.
They say its canceled, but they are working on one prototype...
ReplyDeleteThe Russian military say it is cancelled.
ReplyDeleteUVZ... the makers, will use all the leading edge technology developed for it in their next tank which the military has named Armata.
Think in terms of the Commanche helo.
It is cancelled, but much of the avionics technology developed for it will end up in the AH-64 and some of its stealth features appear to have been used on a Black Hawk for Spec Op use, so will the original program is cancelled its technology lives on.
Same with the T-95... they developed a big gun for that vehicle... I doubt they will scrap it completely.
find out Full Article More Help you could look here investigate this site official statement
ReplyDeleteg0u53n7b07 x5b92h9c62 k7p18o1i35 h4t09r6t89 b8o61h6i04 n1z81c5m72
ReplyDelete