Russia's new T-95 MBT

#1
#5
That was pretty much the situation in WWII. Air superiority, or the enemy having no serious air to ground capability anyway. I think tanks will be an important part of any integrated ground force for a while yet.
True but in the past air power had to actually see the tank to hit it. These days a tank can be destroyed from miles away.
 
#6
This 152? Smooth bore or rifled?

I guess its smoothbore, capable of firing some kind of APFSDS round with a slim penetrator, or even a munition capable of terminal guidance from the the tank itself.

Do modern smoothbore guns have greater punch but less accuracy? The accuracy problem being addressed by fin stabilisation or terminal guidance? Kind of defies obsolescence if you think about it?
 
#8
And aircraft can't always fly. Tanks don't have to worry about weather
 
#9
True but in the past air power had to actually see the tank to hit it. These days a tank can be destroyed from miles away.
But who is better at destroying tanks? Another tank? Infantry with ATGW in defense? Or air power.

An article I read a few years ago said that the Russian military realised after Afghanistan that their MBT-led philosophy for taking on NATO would have been quickly blunted by infantry using MILAN or similar. Such a realisation was one of the reasons ending the cold war. If the Ivan is going to invest in armour again, somebody didn't get the memo or they have forgotten what they learned in Afghanistan. Not a typical Russian trait. Maybe this behemoth is mostly intended for the export market.
 
#10
Oh look another rehash of a T-80, itself a re design of the T-64. Good enough designs in their day but is it still made of steel or a composite? But as stated before useless unless you have air superiority, only usefull for squashing civilians in a civil war.
 
#12
Rubbish. How could 12 MILAN posts stop a Russian Armoured regiment or even more fantastically, cause the Soviets to decide not to invade Germany? I call bollocks made up by infanteers. MILAN+Chieftain+TOW+arty+mines yes. MILAN by itself, no way.

Best thing to kill tanks, are tanks if you discount air-power. Gulf War I and Telic proved this beyond doubt. Just like it proved air power, once air SUPREMACY (very different to air superiority) had been established was the true bane of armour.
 
#17
Rubbish. How could 12 MILAN posts stop a Russian Armoured regiment or even more fantastically, cause the Soviets to decide not to invade Germany? I call bollocks made up by infanteers. MILAN+Chieftain+TOW+arty+mines yes. MILAN by itself, no way.

Best thing to kill tanks, are tanks if you discount air-power. Gulf War I and Telic proved this beyond doubt. Just like it proved air power, once air SUPREMACY (very different to air superiority) had been established was the true bane of armour.
Well since it never happened, I don't know, but the WP were seriously worried about dismounted infantry in the flanks with AT weapons I read somewhere. Maybe more so for the follow up in BMPs/BTRs etc.

I can't find anything on the interweb, but wasn't MILAN used to great effect in Afghanistan against the Russians? Pakistan had the system, and I believe the CIA sourced posts and rounds for the Muj too.
 
#19
Rubbish. How could 12 MILAN posts stop a Russian Armoured regiment or even more fantastically, cause the Soviets to decide not to invade Germany? I call bollocks made up by infanteers. MILAN+Chieftain+TOW+arty+mines yes. MILAN by itself, no way.
IIRC the Bradley AFV comes with 2x TOW launchers, which is nice.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
very high profile on that thing it seems to me...and how many hits would it take to put the autoloader out of whack?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top