Talk:T-95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] If another tank was to be developed, would it be called T-100 something?

If another tank was to be developed, would it be called T-100 something?

-G

Probably not. Usually Russian tanks are named after the year in which they started to be developed or entered in Production, so it would be tentative to think that Russian tanks developed in the XXI century can be called maybe "T-2008" for example, or maybe they'll be switching to a more "western-like" tradition of naming their tanks as in the case of the Obiekt 640 (speculative T-94/95) which has as name "Chyorniy Oryol" (Чёрний Орёл or "Black Eagle" in Russian) and the "Bars" (Барс or "Snow Leopard" in Russian) which is the designation for an already-in-production model of the T-80, the T-80UD. I would like Russia to keep with that tradition of naming their tanks after the year in which they were created even though it wouldn't be as practical if they used 4 digit numbers by using the whole year like I exemplified.Probably they may lean to name them something like "T-05" or "T-10 II". Or maybe they'll be given a mxture of the prototype and tank tame, for example naming the "Obiekt 640" as T-640. ~ ~ ~ ~ZealotKommunizma

Naming after the year doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast rule. The T-50, T-60, T-70, T-80 light tank and T-90 antiaircraft tank were all released during early World War II, and the T-10 started life as the KV-10 in the early 1950s. The Ukrainian T-84 was developed and built in the early 1990s, the T-84 Oplot in the late '90s. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 15:46 Z
Completely agree, though, most Soviet MBTs were named after the year of their development so it's easy to speculate that their following MBTs will be named after the year they were built. I also think of a new possibility that Russia might start naming their tanks in a similar way as with IFV's for example T-1 or T-2. But well, of course all this is speculation. BY the way, if I'm not mistaken the first T-84 publicly appeared on Ukraine's independence parade in 1996 (maybe I'm wrong), wouldn't that count as that the tank's development had started in early 1990's? 201.138.73.72 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma
Well, I think the T-84 was only conceived after Ukrainian independence in 1991, in response to supply problems of components from Russia for the T-80UD being supplied to Pakistan—I think in 1993 or so. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 01:48 Z
Actally, the T-100 already exists.[1] It's a superheavy tank of the late 30-s --213.219.80.182 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objekt 640?

The Black Eagle article claims Objekt 640 is the name of that design. This article describes a different tank, so one of the two is wrong. Alternately this entire article could be incorrect and the speculative nature of the content really referring to early reports about the Black Eagle. Maury 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Eagle and "Obiekt 640" are exactly the same development according to some Russian/former Soviet sources. http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/640.htm http://worldweapon.ru/tank/640.php http://altnet.ru/~military/?btvt/tank/2000/russia/blackeagle/index.htm

I hope this will make clear that the Black Eagle and the Obiekt 640 are the same tank.

The main speculations regarding to this tank, as far as I can see are:

1. Either if its production has started/continues or has been halted due to lack of funding. Lets remember lack of funding seems to be around 2001-2002, and taking into account late Russia's investments on weaponry it's very likely that, if production has been halted then it has been resumed.

2. Its official tank designation. Some call it T-94 others T-95, even some sources call it "T-80UD II" (mainly derived from the fact that some prototypes are the Black Eagle Turret over a T-80UD hull). As long as this tank remains prototype its official designation is pure speculation. Nonetheless what is not specualtion is wether the "Black Eagle" and the "Obiekt 640" are the same tank. I think there's a heavy load of information stating they are the same development.

3. The caliber of its gun which is being speculated to range from 125mm typical Soviet caliber to even 152mm with some versions being 130mm, 135mm and 140mm.

4. Wether if it's being developed for internal use or export Market. I think in this case it will be both. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma

The Obiekt 640 is the Black Eagle. The Black Eagle is not the T-95. The Black Eagle, I gather, was an attempt for Omsk to get out of bankruptcy, and it was denied by the Russian Army. To reduce the cost of the entire tank and the fact that the Russian Army did not want the Black Eagle Omsk attempted to make the turret an upgrade package for older tanks, such as the T-72 and T-80. All pictures of the 'Black Eagle' I have are on T-80 chassis. According to Vasily Fofanov this 'Black Eagle' is not the original Black Eagle, nor close to what the Black Eagle really was. It's safe to say, however, that the Black Eagle will probably never seen wide scale production. At least, it's obvious it will not be sold for the Russian Army, and it's not likely that it will be exported. According to an article on in ARMOR Magazine the tank has been called by Russian sources the result of what happens when scientists have a lot of time and spare parts on their hands. Let's all remember that Omsk is bankrupt, as well! JonCatalan 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

Evidently the article, as Maury seems to have stated, is refering to another tank, the so called "Obiekt 195". I think this must be changed, I have allowed myself to make some changes to the article if the editors don't mind. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma

This is the original tex which I have changed for the present one:

The T-94 or T-95 is a prototype main battle tank, currently in development in the Russian Federation. Most information about this tank is speculative. The tank is said to be of a novel design, with a very large smooth bore tank gun of approximately 152 mm calibre, in a remotely-controlled mount. Such an arrangement increases crew survivability, because the crew compartment is separated from the ready ammunition supply, and would be completely hidden when the tank is in a hull-down position. The crew will number just 3, all being carried within the hull itself.

Historically, Russian tanks are given official designations when they are adopted for production, so even the name T-95 is speculative. The actual current GABTU code of the vehicle is Obyekt 640 (Russian: Объект 640).

The current status of this project is unknown, it is possible that it has been frozen due to lack of funds and limited interest in the radically new design in the current geo-political situation. 201.128.98.189 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma

[edit] Reverted

I see that what I wrote was reverted to almost the original article that I substituted. I'm not against it, nonetheless it returns to the confusion that was present in the original article. It must be clear that the tank described within this article is being confused with the "Black Eagle" or Obiekt 640.

The reason why I think both Ob. 640 and Ob. 195 should be included and both described in the article is that, in case any of the tanks was approved for production and entered service, any of the both can be called T-95.

However for the sake of accuracy both tanks shall not be confused. Ob 195 is readically different from Ob. 640. Once again the tank described within the article is the Ob 195 and is beaing denominated Ob. 640. This is incorrect and shall not permitted.

I start to think that the one who reverted the article is one of those opposed to unregistered users' edition of articles since this person gave no reason to change the article, which, I must point out once again, is completely inaccurate and misleading. I hope "official" editors can get to a consence on whether the article should stay as it is or be changed. And even so it is in urge to be expanded since it's very small and there's more information than the one that appears here in other sites in the net.

So well... for now, for the sake of the article, I will restitute the article as I modified it and won't desist until a good reason for the permanence of the until now current article is given.201.128.98.189 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma

Please don't engage in idle speculation about other editors' motivations, as some sensitive editors could construe this as a personal attack—engage in discussion instead. There are no "official" editors on Wikipedia, but I encourage you to register for a user name, which carries some benefits.
This article will necessarily remain small until there is more to say about this tank. Its very existence is only rumoured, so all this article can do is report statements that have been made by authorities. Wikipedia must publish only verifiable information, so we cannot repeat all of the speculation that appears on mil-fan web sites and discussion forums—there is almost no verifiable information to publish about this tank at all.
The reason this article is titled T-95 is that a Russian Defence Minister has called the vehicle that, and that name is used in a number of sources, including at least one Jane's news item and a number of hobbyist sites. Giving the name "Obyekt 640" here seems to have been a mistake, and I've corrected that.
Information about the Black Eagle tank need not be duplicated here, because that tank has an article of its own, regardless of its possible future designation (this article's subject is a tank, not a name). If there is verifiable information that it might be designated "T-95" in the future then it should be stated there, but that sounds like unfounded speculation to me, since there is no evidence that the Russian forces are about to adopt either of these tanks. And that tank's article should not be titled T-95, because it is by far most commonly called the Black Eagle, and I believe that that's what its manufacturer calls it.
If you have more questions about naming, please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions; the gist is that articles about things should be titled with their most common English name. Other names should be mentioned. —Michael Z. 2006-09-01 19:29 Z
Ok, I agree with the mentioning of the Ob. 640 here being a mistake, it was completely misleading.

This article anyway is on a speculative name which could be applied to any of the prototypes if entered production, so if the Ob. 640 was to be mentioned here as having this possible designation, then, I thought a diferentiation between it and the Ob. 640 was to be done. As I said, I agree with you that the best was to avoid mentioning the Ob. 640 here as the "T-95". But also the denomination "T-95" remains speculative since none has entered production and it could be a possible denomination to any of them.

And I apologize about that, how to say... precipitated accusation, it just seemed so to me on the start. 201.128.98.189 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Don't worry about that. Perhaps I should have written more of a justification on the talk page when I reverted your addition.
If it makes more sense, the article can refer to the tank as Obyekt/Object/Project 195, but it is most commonly called T-95, so that is what the article title should be (do we actually know it is called obyekt 195, and is there a reference to that fact?). If an official T-95 is later released or comes to light, then this article may have to move, or it may be expanded to include new developments. —Michael Z. 2006-09-03 01:14 Z
Folks, don't overedit/overjustify! Please, no "Project"s here! The term "project" is not used for tanks. Any (GABTU) designations refer to "object"s only. --jno 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the exact meaning of the Russian term ob”iekt (объект) in this context? English object has two main definitions. Does it mean a material thing? Or an intended goal or purpose?
It's convenient to translate the word as object, but in the context, it's impossible to tell what that means. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:26 Z
It means "machine (or installation) being researched and eventually built for testing" 195.218.211.41 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update 9/11/06: examining the source

The recent addition refers to a lenta.ru news item. The Lenta item merely cites defencetalk.com, and then repeats all of the rumours and extrapolation. The only relevant defencetalk article is a syndicated report from Agence France-Presse (AFP), which paraphrases a statement by an anonymous diplomat—barely more than rumour.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-11 17:04 Z

There is more in the lenta.ru story than in the defensetalk.com (AFT) story. Specifically, lenta.ru states that T-95 is already undergoing state testing and is scheduled to be serially produced starting in 2007. Lenta does not state the source of this significant information, however, so perhaps some scepticism is warranted. Profhobby 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Perhaps they do have more information, but not well enough sourced to cite. Or perhaps they are referring to older stories on their site which do cite other sources, which may be valuable for this article. Do you read Russian? (I don't). If you have a bit of time, look over the dozen or so pages Google finds on their site. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-12 18:10 Z
I read Russian and I looked through the google search results, but I did not find any mention of this information. So, we still don't know what their sources are for the information about serial production and state testing. Profhobby 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It says that the T-95 will be ready for Saudi Arabia by 2007, yet a user named Harkonnen, on Tank Net, says that the official Russian release date of the tank is 2008, not 2007 - he has some sort of list of contacts with the Russian Army, it seems. Although I don't think all his information is 100% correct, he does obviously have some sort of contact inside the Russian Army because he knows as much factual information as he knows non-factual information, and factual and non-factual alike they seem to all come from official Russian sources. It's very possible that the various articles that chronicled Saudi Arabia's potential purchase of T-95s actually meant T-90s. JonCatalan 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
We can write about the stated intentions of people or organizations, if they have been published. But even then, plans like these are subject to change. Especially when the subject is a military secret. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:28 Z

Take a look at this thread on modernwarstudies.net; points to an article that claims that the T-90 may be sold to Saudi Arabia; not the T-95. JonCatalan 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the T-95

Russia is resuming its milltary pardes as we all know that under the cold war new tanks has ben showed to the public under the parades so they might show the T-95 the parade wil be in May 9 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.5.65 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)