Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

About earlier discussion, ATGM in West.

In fact they aknowledged the advantage of a gun launched guided weapon, it led to developement of joint project, MBT-70, of course it resulted in failure due to several issues.

152mm XM150E5

Missile firing scheme, up to 3 km distance.

Their technological level, problems with miniaturisation limited guided missile to a great caliber, 152 mm, and very big error was made, to develop a gun around missile which implied a sacrifice in ballistic parameters, resulting in weak performance of conventional munition, APFSDS perforation, accuracy... which was clearly contradictory to MBT concept, when main armament is unbalanced thus vehicle MBT-70 did not really served as real MBT despite it's name. As a result Western tank ATGM were not further pursued, which was not because of lack of necessity, but fail of implementation concept.

Soviets succeeded through different path, they could develop a missile corresponding with existing caliber, which fit in main gun, preserving high ballistic performance and ability to use conventional ammunition with same effectiveness, with added advantages of guided missile, engagement from standoff range and improved accuracy and penetration ability from 2 km.

 

[Damian]

XM150 was high pressure weapon. It is typical misconception and lack of knowledge of russian language sources that confuse XM150 with M81 gun launcher.

The problem was not with overall XM150 or MGM-51 Shillelagh missile, nor with conventional ammunition performance. The problem was with electronics reliability at that time, although most problems were solved to the late 1970's. Besides this both M81 and XM150 were rifled guns, this produced a significant problems with firing missiles from gun, because it forced to develop key and key hole for missile and gun barrel.

The fact is however that in the end, after analisis of engagement ranges in europe, it was decided that pursuit after GLATGM is not worth the effort and costs. Besides this Shillelagh systems was developed in time when fire control systems were not very precise, it was pre laser range finder era. When modern fire control systems with laser range finders were fielded, the nececity of GLATGM that were LOS weapons, disappeard, especially that in Europe most combat ranges is well below 2,000m.

Different concept then was created, BLOS and NLOS GLATGM's and ATGM's, for LOS engagements, conventional ammunition is more than enough.

I recommend to read the best source about this issues, two Richard P. Hunnicutt books - Patton A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 1 and Abrams A History Of The American Main battle Tank volume 2.

Other sources about subject are very, very poor, and not objective.

 

[hest]

XM150 was high pressure weapon. It is typical misconception and lack of knowledge of russian language sources that confuse XM150 with M81 gun launcher.

It was not of high pressure and not of good ballistic performance as it yielded significanctly to anti-tank guns of lower caliber.

The problem was not with overall XM150 or MGM-51 Shillelagh missile, nor with conventional ammunition performance. The problem was with electronics reliability at that time, although most problems were solved to the late 1970's. Besides this both M81 and XM150 were rifled guns, this produced a significant problems with firing missiles from gun, because it forced to develop key and key hole for missile and gun barrel.

Big error, and what led to fail was intention to adopt gun around a missile, and not the other way round. There were problems because due to worse ballistics conventional ammunition in accuracy, and APFSDS in performance were poor and "MBT" did not serve for closer range.

The fact is however that in the end, after analisis of engagement ranges in europe, it was decided that pursuit after GLATGM is not worth the effort and costs.

Both Western planners (with this project) and USSR knew about their use and made developements accordingly. But what marked difference was that Soviets succeeded with correct path.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Poll added..

 

[Damian]

It was not of high pressure and not of good ballistic performance as it yielded significanctly to anti-tank guns of lower caliber.

As I said, you are making typical mistake for people leaving in east. You are confusing XM150 with M81. You better read american sources, not some fantasy of some fool from Russia.

Big error, and what led to fail was intention to adopt gun around a missile, and not the other way round. There were problems because due to worse ballistics conventional ammunition in accuracy, and APFSDS in performance were poor and "MBT" did not serve for closer range.

Try harder, because I do not understand this google translator babble.

Both Western planners (with this project) and USSR knew about their use and made developements accordingly. But what marked difference was that Soviets succeeded with correct path.

And? 9M112, 9M119, Kombat, and similiar are LOS ammunition, in the end Americans and somewhat also Israelis decided that LOS guided munitions are obsolete, and with digitalization it is better to invest in BLOS and NLOS ammunition.

I also talked with tank crews, they said that overall they do not like GLATGM in their tanks, because it reduce quantity of APFSDS, HEAT and HE ammunition taken inside vehicle, that they seen as more usefull and needed than GLATGM. Take a note that this is opinion of people that were actually fighting in real wars.

BTW.
XM578E1 APFSDS performance was somewhat similiar to XM735, this means:
3" @75o at 2000 m
5" @60o at 3000 m
6" @60o at 1000 m

Which is a good result for most ammuniion and guns of that period + considering most threats of that period and that back then, main anti tank ammunition was still HEAT not APFSDS or APDS.

Oh and one more thing, we should remember about historical context, that is alltimes fogotten by our beloved bellarussian from Moscow here.

In times when XM150 was developed, it was considered as high pressure weapon, and it was high pressure weapon compared to M81 and standard main guns used back then in NATO.

By today standards it is of course not high pressure gun, neither it's accuracy can be comparable with modern tank guns. It's performance by today standards also might look not good.

But in terms of performance we should remember that at that time in NATO, main anti tank ammunition was still HEAT, that's performance in armor penetration do not depends on pressure and velocity and kintetic energy of projectile.

It is very easy to manipulate facts and history, if someone do not have full knowledge about period, context and other nececary terms to properly make conclusions.

 

[methos]

As I said, you are making typical mistake for people leaving in east. You are confusing XM150 with M81. You better read american sources, not some fantasy of some fool from Russia.

It is not a "high-pressure weapon", Damian, look at Hunnicutt's book. He writes there that the design pressure of XM150 is "72,000 psi" which is less than 5,000 bar (and so it is worse than the 115 mm 2A26 of the early T-64). He also writes in the datasheets that the chamber volume is 600 cubic inches (and this is only used with the XM578 APFSDS, else only 285 cubic inches are used) compared to 670 cubic inches for the M256.
Even if the design pressure would be higher - which is not given - it could never achieve similar performance as the M256 or the 2A46; I think it is very likely that the 105 mm M68 tank gun is better at firing kinetic energy rounds (based on the increased internal surface, low caliber length and greatly increased sabot weight of the XM150/XM578).

 

[hest]

As I said, you are making typical mistake for people leaving in east. You are confusing XM150 with M81. You better read american sources, not some fantasy of some fool from Russia.

No, I am referring to gun of MBT-70, XM150E5. It had not high pressure, especially for anti-tank gun, was of short caliber lenght and accuracy of projectiles was achieved throught rifled bore which further reduced performance.

Try harder, because I do not understand this google translator babble.

Resumed, they had a main requirement for guided munition and to meet it they adapted the gun for the missile in sacrifice of ballistic performance of conventional projectiles. This was an error because in practice missile was only usefull for longer range, and tank was not suitable for normal engagement due to weak ballistics.

And? 9M112, 9M119, Kombat, and similiar are LOS ammunition, in the end Americans and somewhat also Israelis decided that LOS guided munitions are obsolete, and with digitalization it is better to invest in BLOS and NLOS ammunition.

It is funny because they all tried with them, but not everyone succeeded. If you believe line of sight engagement is obsolete, well, you can retire MBT from anti-tank role and replace them with artillery

I also talked with tank crews, they said that overall they do not like GLATGM in their tanks, because it reduce quantity of APFSDS, HEAT and HE ammunition taken inside vehicle, that they seen as more usefull and needed than GLATGM. Take a note that this is opinion of people that were actually fighting in real wars.

Again incorrect because atleast in Soviet practice ATGMs were not replacement but addition, fulfilling their niche.

 

[Damian]

Some additonal informations:

APFSDS-T XM578 with WHA core (l/d 8:1) and mv=1478 m/s. It`s penetration was estimated on circa 220-250 mm RHA at 2000 m.

With such muzzle velocity is hard to call XM150 a low pressure weapon.

So:

It is not a "high-pressure weapon", Damian, look at Hunnicutt's book. He writes there that the design pressure of XM150 is "72,000 psi" which is less than 5,000 bar (and so it is worse than the 115 mm 2A26 of the early T-64). He also writes in the datasheets that the chamber volume is 600 cubic inches (and this is only used with the XM578 APFSDS, else only 285 cubic inches are used) compared to 670 cubic inches for the M256.
Even if the design pressure would be higher - which is not given - it could never achieve similar performance as the M256 or the 2A46; I think it is very likely that the 105 mm M68 tank gun is better at firing kinetic energy rounds (based on the increased internal surface, low caliber length and greatly increased sabot weight of the XM150/XM578).

You are making a mistake. XM150 is older design than M256, not to mention it is a completely not correct to compare rifled gun with smoothbore gun.

For it's capabilities XM150 was a high pressure weapon, it does not mean it was as good as M256, Rh-120 or 2A46, while performance of APFSDS fired from XM150 was very similiar to performance of 105mm APFSDS of that period.

We do not know what performance would have XM150 with more modern ammunition.

No, I am referring to gun of MBT-70, XM150E5. It had not high pressure, especially for anti-tank gun, was of short caliber lenght and accuracy of projectiles was achieved throught rifled bore which further reduced performance.

And you are making another typical mistake by comparing older design, with much modern design that were also firing more modern ammunition. By your flawed logic, KwK36 88mm should also be called low pressure weapon compared with 2A46, even if in it's time, it was considered as high pessure weapon.

Resumed, they had a main requirement for guided munition and to meet it they adapted the gun for the missile in sacrifice of ballistic performance of conventional projectiles. This was an error because in practice missile was only usefull for longer range, and tank was not suitable for normal engagement due to weak ballistics.

In the same time, facts shows that performance of APFSDS ammunition of XM150 was comparable with 105mm APFSDS ammunition of that period.

Not to mention that you completely ignores a fact that in 1960's and 1970's, NATO considered as main anti tank ammunition, HEAT, that was not dependant in it's anti armor performance on muzzle velocity.

Oh, how easy it become to manipulate facts these days by just ignoring them, and base conclusions on incomplete or poor informations.

It is funny because they all tried with them, but not everyone succeeded. If you believe line of sight engagement is obsolete, well, you can retire MBT from anti-tank role and replace them with artillery

I do not belive that line of sight engagements are obsolete, I belive that shaped charge ammunition in that role are obsolete due to armor protection evolution that will surpass eventually this type of ammunition. It is much easier to increase protection against shaped charge ammunition than kinetic energy ammunition.

However shaped charge ammunition have it's future as BLOS and NLOS guided ammunition, kinetic energy ammunition is more efficent as line of sight application, due to it's higer velocity and shorter flight time to target.

Again incorrect because atleast in Soviet practice ATGMs were not replacement but addition, fulfilling their niche.

Again you do not understand what is written in english. The context of discussion with tank crews that i talked with, is that addition in form of LOS GLATGM, is useless in their eyes, because it's reduce the number of conventional ammunition they can take. BLOS and NLOS is a different story.

Although we should remember that in the end US Army use of MGM-51 Shillelagh system, was very similiar to how Soviets used their initial use of ATGM's on vehicles.

M60A2 and MBT-70/XM803 can be compared to such designs as IT-1 Drakon or Objects 757, 772, 282, 775, 287 and 780. These were more missile firing tank destroyers than tanks.

 

[Damian]

Data comparrision, from Hunnicutt Abrams A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 2.

XM150 152mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
XM578E1 - 1478 m/s
M409 - 754 m/s

M68 105mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
M392A2 - 1478 m/s
M735 - 1501 m/s
M456 - 1173 m/s

M256 120mm smoothbore:
muzzle velocity:
M829 - 1700 m/s
M830 - 1140 m/s

As we can see firing APFSDS ammunition, XM150 was comparable with 105mm rifled, which was and is considered as high pressure weapon, so it means that for it's generation and time, XM150 was also high pressure gun, it does not mean it was or is comparable with more modern main guns, especially the smoothbore ones. Neither we do not know how it would perform with more capable ammunition.

As additional comparision to show the point how important is context of the period when gun was developed and used.

German 8,8cm KwK 36 had such muzzle velocity with such types of ammunition.

Pzgr. 39 - 773-810 m/s
Pzgr. 40 - 930 m/s
Gr. 39 - 600 m/s

By todays standards KwK 36 can be called low pressure gun, with poor performance, but when it was developed it was a high pressure weapon with very good performance.

This is a good example how Lidsky manipulate informations for his personal agenda.

Additional comparrision data for soviet tank guns of that period.

D-10 100mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectile it ranges from 887 to 897 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 600 to 898 m/s

2A20/U-5TS "Molot/Rapira" 115mm smoothbore:
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectiles it ranges from 1615 to 1600 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 800 to 950 m/s

2A21 115mm smoothbore (used on T-64):
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectiles it ranges from 1615 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 950 m/s

But as we can see these weapons are high pressure and high velocity guns, just like XM150 was, but of course it does not mean that XM150 was very bad or very good design, it was medicore weapon.

 

[hest]

Data comparrision, from Hunnicutt Abrams A History Of The American Main Battle Tank volume 2.

XM150 152mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
XM578E1 - 1478 m/s
M409 - 754 m/s

M68 105mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
M392A2 - 1478 m/s
M735 - 1501 m/s
M456 - 1173 m/s

As we can see firing APFSDS ammunition, XM150 was comparable with 105mm rifled, which was and is considered as high pressure weapon, so it means that for it's generation and time, XM150 was also high pressure gun, it does not mean it was or is comparable with more modern main guns, especially the smoothbore ones. Neither we do not know how it would perform with more capable ammunition.

As additional comparision to show the point how important is context of the period when gun was developed and used.

This is a good example how Lidsky manipulate informations for his personal agenda.

Additional comparrision data for soviet tank guns of that period.

D-10 100mm rifled:
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectile it ranges from 887 to 897 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 600 to 898 m/s

2A20/U-5TS "Molot/Rapira" 115mm smoothbore:
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectiles it ranges from 1615 to 1600 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 800 to 950 m/s

2A21 115mm smoothbore (used on T-64):
muzzle velocity:
for kinetic energy projectiles it ranges from 1615 m/s
for chemical energy projectiles it ranges from 950 m/s

But as we can see these weapons are high pressure and high velocity guns, just like XM150 was, but of course it does not mean that XM150 was very bad or very good design, it was medicore weapon.

You are commiting a conceptual error. Muzzle velocity is not dependant only on pressure but on caliber, lenght and less degree on projectile mass, (what matters is energy) in fact the term low, medium, high pressure is relative to caliber of gun, it is not general.

If for example 152mm gun had same pressure than 105mm, it would not be considered high pressure. Having all in account, as energy of 152mm gun was not greater than 105 (short bore, etc) increased caliber was disadvantage, making worse projectile performance, in fact 105mm ammunition which you show was better, and it was not seen as perspective.

Also MBT-70 later was not intended to be used as main tank, but auxiliary to another with decent anti-tank gun, thus it was a fail for conventional close range.

 

[hest]

I do not belive that line of sight engagements are obsolete, I belive that shaped charge ammunition in that role are obsolete due to armor protection evolution that will surpass eventually this type of ammunition. It is much easier to increase protection against shaped charge ammunition than kinetic energy ammunition.

Ammunition has been evolving in accordance with armour and was efficient in corresponding time. In fact for armour at that time it was difficult as increase in both Kinetic and cumulative protection was in part contradictory and there were limitations..

However shaped charge ammunition have it's future as BLOS and NLOS guided ammunition, kinetic energy ammunition is more efficent as line of sight application, due to it's higer velocity and shorter flight time to target.

In line of sight kinetic APFSDS looses accuracy and performance and is suitable for close range up to 2 km. 2-5 km niche is fulfilled by guided ammunition.

Again you do not understand what is written in english. The context of discussion with tank crews that i talked with, is that addition in form of LOS GLATGM, is useless in their eyes, because it's reduce the number of conventional ammunition they can take. BLOS and NLOS is a different story.

It does not reduce because missile fulfills it's niche and does not replace conventional anti-tank rounds, as well as HEAT, in fact it is better than the latter and more accurate.

Although we should remember that in the end US Army use of MGM-51 Shillelagh system, was very similiar to how Soviets used their initial use of ATGM's on vehicles.

M60A2 and MBT-70/XM803 can be compared to such designs as IT-1 Drakon or Objects 757, 772, 282, 775, 287 and 780. These were more missile firing tank destroyers than tanks.

MBT-70 was intended as MBT but failed as explained. Soviet projects were not intended as main tanks and in fact were not popular, they succeeded by incorporating missile into MBT without sacrifice of ballistic parameters.

 

[Damian]

You are commiting a conceptual error. Muzzle velocity is not dependant only on pressure but on caliber, lenght and less degree on projectile mass, (what matters is energy) in fact the term low, medium, high pressure is relative to caliber of gun, it is not general.

If for example 152mm gun had same pressure than 105mm, it would not be considered high pressure. Having all in account, as energy of 152mm gun was not greater than 105 (short bore, etc) increased caliber was disadvantage, making worse projectile performance, in fact 105mm ammunition which you show was better, and it was not seen as perspective.

I do not care about your opinion, it is irrelevant, I care only about facts, facts are that gun was high pressure, high velocity type, which contradicts with your silly theories.

Also MBT-70 later was not intended to be used as main tank, but auxiliary to another with decent anti-tank gun, thus it was a fail for conventional close range.

And this silly theory comes from where?! Another stupid russian source that is so far from reality that farther it can't be?

So what was that another MBT with decent anti-tank gun? Imagined tank from Moscow?

Maybe first read some good quality western books like Hunnicutt ones.

MBT-70 was intended as MBT, there was no other project. Only Germans were considering two types of MBT-70, one with 152mm gun launcher and second variant with 120mm gun, later the same concept was to build two Leopard 2 types, one with 120mm gun and second with 152mm gun launcher. In the end Germans decided to produce only tank with 120mm gun.

In USA it was more simple, after MBT-70 cancellation they designed simplified variant XM803, but still armed with 152mm gun lanucher, in the end it was decided to cancelle project and design more traditional MBT, it was designed as XM815, and later it evolved in to XM1 project, which become M1 in the end.

I never expected that in Russia history of western tanks is so poor knowledge, considering that west is more open, and history of development is completely released for public knowledge.

In line of sight kinetic APFSDS looses accuracy and performance and is suitable for close range up to 2 km. 2-5 km niche is fulfilled by guided ammunition.

Maybe in Russia, in west max engagement range for APFSDS is 3,5 to 4 km.

It does not reduce because missile fulfills it's niche and does not replace conventional anti-tank rounds, as well as HEAT, in fact it is better than the latter and more accurate.

As I said, tank crews which I was talking, do not care what is done in Russia, it is irrelevant.

 

[hest]

I do not care about your opinion, it is irrelevant, I care only about facts, facts are that gun was high pressure, high velocity type, which contradicts with your silly theories.

No, because with increase in caliber there was no increase in energy, low ballistics and worse performance. Even the 105 mm ammunition you showed was better, and it was supposed to be replaced.

MBT-70 was intended as MBT, there was no other project. Only Germans were considering two types of MBT-70, one with 152mm gun launcher and second variant with 120mm gun, later the same concept was to build two Leopard 2 types, one with 120mm gun and second with 152mm gun launcher. In the end Germans decided to produce only tank with 120mm gun.

They went further and aknowledged the problem, that is why 152mm was a fail and not perspective. Americans directly renounced, both situations confirm that.

Maybe in Russia, in west max engagement range for APFSDS is 3,5 to 4 km.

And it is joke, and contradictory because MBT-70 missile was intended for 2-3km same as later german knew that APFSDS was not accurate and powerfull starting from 2 km.

As I said, tank crews which I was talking, do not care what is done in Russia, it is irrelevant.

So you talk about "knowledgeable" person which never operated missile from tank ?

 

[JBH22]

Any idea why the Russians are upgrading their T-72 and not T-80 plus also not buying new T-90.

The Armata project is still some years ahead and both the T-95 and Black Eagle project have been shelved.

So is the T-72 Rogatka the tank to look forward?

 

[Damian]

Any idea why the Russians are upgrading their T-72 and not T-80 plus also not buying new T-90.

It is because of UVZ mafia, they had connection in goverment, and lack of any significant export success for T-80 series, meant that production of that progressive tank was ceased and manufacturer was bancrupt.

In that case regressive design was choosen as new MBT, and other designs will be withdrawn from service when their service life will end.

Also remember that progressive design bureau, the KMDB was left in Ukraine, and after close of LKZ/OKBTM, only regressive UKBTM was left.

The Armata project is still some years ahead and both the T-95 and Black Eagle project have been shelved.

More proper is to use GABTU designations for prototypes, so not T-95 but Object 195, and not Black Eagle but Object 640.

So is the T-72 Rogatka the tank to look forward?

No, T-72B2 is only modernization.

They went further and aknowledged the problem, that is why 152mm was a fail and not perspective. Americans directly renounced, both situations confirm that.

I ask again, what was that other tank that you imagined as supplement for MBT-70? I really want to laugh from you, so please, do not disapoint me.

And it is joke, and contradictory because MBT-70 missile was intended for 2-3km same as later german knew that APFSDS was not accurate and powerfull starting from 2 km.

I really do not care what you belive in, the fact is that at this moment, max engagement range with APFSDS ammunition is 3,5-4km.

So you talk about "knowledgeable" person which never operated missile from tank ?

I talk about someone who actually fought in a real war, and is working as a proffesional tank crewmen, contrary to you, little fantasy boy who is talking about imagined tanks.

 

[hest]

Any idea why the Russians are upgrading their T-72 and not T-80 plus also not buying new T-90.

T-80 is more expensive to operate (gas turbine) and there is aim of standarisation of fleet, composed mostly of T-72. Upgrade of T-72 is more cost effective than buying new T-90, and there is no much sense to purchase it as soon future tank Armata is to enter mass production.

So is the T-72 Rogatka the tank to look forward?

Yes, modernisation to that level is performed from this year and it is planned to modernise significant number.

 

[Damian]

T-80 is more expensive to operate (gas turbine) and there is aim of standarisation of fleet, composed mostly of T-72. Upgrade of T-72 is more cost effective than buying new T-90, and there is no much sense to purchase it as soon future tank Armata is to enter mass production.

There was nothing standing against replacing gas turbine with Diesel engine.

Russian T-80UD equivalent was more than possible.

Russia had two good options to take, or design their own T-80UD equivalent or pursue Object 187, instead some "briliant genius" decided to pursue Object 188 known today as T-90, which was nothing more than T-72B on steroids, and in it's essence inferior to both T-80UD and Object 187.

So again instead of progressive designs, regressive design was choosen.

 

[JBH22]

T-80 is more expensive to operate (gas turbine) and there is aim of standarisation of fleet, composed mostly of T-72. Upgrade of T-72 is more cost effective than buying new T-90, and there is no much sense to purchase it as soon future tank Armata is to enter mass production

After the Chechen war the Russians started operating only the Diesel engines correct me if I'm wrong its the T-80UD.

Yes, modernisation to that level is performed from this year and it is planned to modernise significant number.

In this case Indians were stupid to buy the T-90 I really don't understand why we always reinvent the wheel in this country.

Last time I read about this upgrade it appears to be as much powerful as any modern tank.

The T-90 has still not got the much awaited a/c because of our dear generals.

 

[Damian]

After the Chechen war the Russians started operating only the Diesel engines correct me if I'm wrong its the T-80UD.

It is wrong. T-80BV with gas turbine is still the most numerous T-80 variant in Russian Army service. T-80U is also gas turbine powered, T-80UD's in Russian Army service were withdrawn and their turrets are placed on modernized T-80BV hulls, these hybrids are designated T-80UE-1.

 

[hest]

It is because of UVZ mafia, they had connection in goverment, and lack of any significant export success for T-80 series, meant that production of that progressive tank was ceased and manufacturer was bancrupt.

In that case regressive design was choosen as new MBT, and other designs will be withdrawn from service when their service life will end.

Also remember that progressive design bureau, the KMDB was left in Ukraine, and after close of LKZ/OKBTM, only regressive UKBTM was left.

Fleet is to be unified with T-72, T-90 models. There is no sense now to continue with T-80 with different logistics and more expense

There are currently 2 main design bureaus, UKBTM (Tagil) and KBTM (Omsk) with corresponding production facilities under holding of Uralvagonzavod.

More proper is to use GABTU designations for prototypes, so not T-95 but Object 195, and not Black Eagle but Object 640.

Latter one did not pass from model, main developement was Burlak.

I ask again, what was that other tank that you imagined as supplement for MBT-70? I really want to laugh from you, so please, do not disapoint me.

You have written yourself

MBT-70 was intended as MBT, there was no other project. Only Germans were considering two types of MBT-70, one with 152mm gun launcher and second variant with 120mm gun, later the same concept was to build two Leopard 2 types, one with 120mm gun and second with 152mm gun launcher.

So there was needed auxiliar tank.

I really do not care what you belive in, the fact is that at this moment, max engagement range with APFSDS ammunition is 3,5-4km.

This shows your poor knowledge. You even contradict Western planners, MBT-70.

I talk about someone who actually fought in a real war, and is working as a proffesional tank crewmen, contrary to you, little fantasy boy who is talking about imagined tanks.

Ahh, so you talked with someone who talks about something he never operated and start and argument. ))