NILMOR 25 Report post Posted January 16, 2020 So I have recently unlocked the T95 and I have found out that it's very ugly.. It looks like it was made from play dough by a 5 years old.. It's all asymmetrical and weird anyone cares to explain why? Doesn't seem like American standards to me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rebral Palsy 2,423 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 30 minutes ago, NILMOR said: So I have recently unlocked the T95 and I have found out that it's very ugly.. It looks like it was made from play dough by a 5 years old.. It's all asymmetrical and weird anyone cares to explain why? Doesn't seem like American standards to me Well, the T95 (medium tank) was meant as an alternate means to replace the M48 Patton tank. It was also built for testing siliceous-core armor, different transmission, hydraulic suspension, and a new OPTAR fire-control system all of which most likely contributed to the T95's overall shape and design to be unusual and asymmetrical like you mentioned. (The turret of the T95 actually contributed to the development of the M60A1 tank) It's also worth noting that the Americans also tested many different hull and turret type configurations with the T95 such as the M48 turret with the T95 chassis. (The one that we have ingame is the T95E1) 1 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankdaMonkey 706 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 Till they broke the steering a couple big updates back, nerfed the sabot round and killed the accuracy the T95E1 was fun tank and a serious killer if played right. Now every other shot flies off into space and one shot kills are a rarity where they were the norm, shots bouncing off most anything russian is almost a guarantee, was you could one shot IS-7's with ease not anymore... Enjoy the pain, not much else you can do with it now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NILMOR 25 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 14 hours ago, Digital8BitBuddy said: Well, the T95 (medium tank) was meant as an alternate means to replace the M48 Patton tank. It was also built for testing siliceous-core armor, different transmission, hydraulic suspension, and a new OPTAR fire-control system all of which most likely contributed to the T95's overall shape and design to be unusual and asymmetrical like you mentioned. (The turret of the T95 actually contributed to the development of the M60A1 tank) It's also worth noting that the Americans also tested many different hull and turret type configurations with the T95 such as the M48 turret with the T95 chassis. (The one that we have ingame is the T95E1) Thanks so I get it that they didn't have much confidence in the design so they didn't care if it was all twisted.. 12 hours ago, SpankdaMonkey said: Till they broke the steering a couple big updates back, nerfed the sabot round and killed the accuracy the T95E1 was fun tank and a serious killer if played right. Now every other shot flies off into space and one shot kills are a rarity where they were the norm, shots bouncing off most anything russian is almost a guarantee, was you could one shot IS-7's with ease not anymore... Enjoy the pain, not much else you can do with it now. From what I see it's an OK tank.. Just it doesn't want to turn.. I'm always fighting with it seems like it can go only forward or you need to stop to neutral steer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AraMacao 1,164 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) Abrams and challenger 1 have asymmetrical turrets too. I think T95E1 is fairly nice looking. It would look better without turret overhang and with full symmetry. Edited January 17, 2020 by AraMacao 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NILMOR 25 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 42 minutes ago, AraMacao said: Abrams and challenger 1 have asymmetrical turrets too. I think T95E1 is fairly nice looking. It would look better without turret overhang and with full symmetry. I don't mean asymmetry like the abrams per se but it looks like it was made in a cave in the middle east somewhere by Tony Stark.. It's full of bumps the cage behind is bent the commander cupola seems like it was left on the stove for too long and melted. I'm not home so I can't take a Pic but look for your self. Maybe it wasn't made like that and it is the artistic creativity of Gaijin I dunno 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AraMacao 1,164 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, NILMOR said: ... the commander cupola seems like it was left on the stove for too long and melted. ... Anyway I like them curves on the T95E1 turret. I hope we get the other american T-tanks. Edited January 17, 2020 by AraMacao Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackRob 179 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) While I can see where the OP is coming from, I can't really say myself what were going through the heads of the designers to answer their question directly, except for the fact that this was primarily a test bed vehicle, so I imagine there was emphasis on performance and ergonomics over looks (as should be the case with any combat vehicle imo), especially to explore new, different, and unconventional designs that may be beneficial at the time. Seeking to meet a budget may also have played a role like most developments. Screenshots of the T95E1 in-game. Spoiler Comparative Screenshots of the M48A1, T95E1, and M60. Spoiler My perception/observation on the matter: Spoiler However, I can agree that the tank can look odd in some way if one looks closely at it, and for me I see two particular reasons for this. The commander's cupola/station and the turret rear. For the commander's cupola, If I look at the changes between the M48, T95E1, and M60, I can see one requirement that the designers of the T95 wanted that affected the outcome of how it looked. The hatch must open from the top to allow better overall maneuvering and observation when viewing outside of the tank from the station. The M48 had a commander's hatch that swung open towards the rear, while the T95's was placed above the commander and swiveled open, an ergonomic choice that afforded him to better enter/exit the vehicle and be less exposed when observing through the hatch. However, adding this swivel hatch required a bulge for the hinge. With the M60, they did settle on a standard hinged hatch that opened towards the rear not unlike the loader's hatch to accomplish this. There also seems to be an additional bulge on the rear of the cupola where the rear hook is, not sure if there's something on the interior that necessitates this bulge, but both these bulges together as well as trying to keep a small profile definitely prevents a nice circular shape found on production models (M48, M60, etc). Also note how the cupola also tries to conforms to the (fewer) standard view ports that is shared in all 3 tanks, but the 2 bulges prevents this entirely. Rear of the turret looks bear with very soft curved edges that can look unpleasing to the eye, especially eye-catching in the typical third-person view. The stowage cage itself on the rear generally conforms nicely with the turret as a whole. Overall, it's definitely a design obviously inspired by soviet turret shape, but accommodated with the standard american layout of the time, and without the two mentioned "eyesores" the T95E1 would probably very easy on the eyes. T95E1's cupola. Spoiler Edited January 17, 2020 by JackRob Added additional pics. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NILMOR 25 Report post Posted January 17, 2020 Now that you explained it so perfectly I'm having hard time laughing at the tank but man this cupola sends shivers down my spine like an alien life form.. So why did they ditch this design for the m60? Sloped armor seems better a specially when they started using APFSDS that don't bounce into trap shots? I actually think that it had potential Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSGKI_HARA_UOOH 2,828 Report post Posted January 18, 2020 12 hours ago, NILMOR said: So why did they ditch this design for the m60? Sloped armor seems better a specially when they started using APFSDS that don't bounce into trap shots? I actually think that it had potential The project is actually realized in from of M60A1 AOS + M375 Instead of not having the tank at all they decided to put the tank out one by one. Needle style turret first, the stabilizer second, the APFSDS dart last. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanebynight7130@live 59 Report post Posted January 18, 2020 What I find interesting about the T95 is all the variants they tested , I personally like the T95e8 with the 120 Delta gun , which I have seen people say the Americans turned the design over to the Germans which became the RH120 . Theres also the T95e6 which tested a light weight version of the M103s M58 which I think they tested on the T95 for plans to mount it on the M60 . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NILMOR 25 Report post Posted January 19, 2020 So much testing! I see there are still a lot of vehicles to be added Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanebynight7130@live 59 Report post Posted January 19, 2020 46 minutes ago, NILMOR said: So much testing! I see there are still a lot of vehicles to be added Theres alot of T95 models Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evaris 2,065 Report post Posted January 19, 2020 Other versions of the T95 we should / could get based on warthunder addition standards: T95 (E0) - Stabilized with a rangefinder, (was historically considered too expensive, leading to the E1 simplification) T95E2 - T95 hull with an M48A2 turret. T95E3 - T95 hull with T54E2 turret. T95E5 - T95 hull with turret later used on the M60. Never assembled. (though obviously both hull and turret were used separately) T95E7 - T95 hull with turret later used on M60A1/A3. Never assembled (as above with the E5.) T95E8 - T95E2 with upgraded engine. T118 - T95 hull, M60 turret, 165mm howitzer like the Centurion AVRE. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanebynight7130@live 59 Report post Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Evaris said: Other versions of the T95 we should / could get based on warthunder addition standards: T95 (E0) - Stabilized with a rangefinder, (was historically considered too expensive, leading to the E1 simplification) T95E2 - T95 hull with an M48A2 turret. T95E3 - T95 hull with T54E2 turret. T95E5 - T95 hull with turret later used on the M60. Never assembled. (though obviously both hull and turret were used separately) T95E7 - T95 hull with turret later used on M60A1/A3. Never assembled (as above with the E5.) T95E8 - T95E2 with upgraded engine. T118 - T95 hull, M60 turret, 165mm howitzer like the Centurion AVRE. You missed the T95e6 which has the LW version of the M58 120mm . There appears to be two different T95e8s , the one I was refering to is the T95e8 Delta . T95e6 looks beautiful Edited January 19, 2020 by Futarrari@live 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evaris 2,065 Report post Posted January 21, 2020 The problem is that the T96 turret for the T95E6 was never completed. Hence, it wouldn't fit in quite so much with the usual warthunder addition restrictions, I think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanebynight7130@live 59 Report post Posted January 21, 2020 5 hours ago, Evaris said: The problem is that the T96 turret for the T95E6 was never completed. Hence, it wouldn't fit in quite so much with the usual warthunder addition restrictions, I think? Well the T110e5 was passed to devs for consideration and I dont think it got as far as the T96 for serious development . theres many different opinions on adding prototypes , just like the split opinions on map designs open maps vs city maps etc . I see no reason we cant have both . The same people who dont want prototypes are the ones I see bitching when a modification for a tank is added in as a complete new tank . Cant have you're cake and eat it too , the game needs new vehicles . Grinding the American line feels so tedious going through 4 abrams . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddePro 1,146 Report post Posted February 19, 2020 On 21/01/2020 at 20:52, Futarrari@live said: Well the T110e5 was passed to devs for consideration and I dont think it got as far as the T96 for serious development . theres many different opinions on adding prototypes , just like the split opinions on map designs open maps vs city maps etc . I see no reason we cant have both . The same people who dont want prototypes are the ones I see bitching when a modification for a tank is added in as a complete new tank . Cant have you're cake and eat it too , the game needs new vehicles . Grinding the American line feels so tedious going through 4 abrams . just remember, if something is 'passed to the devs' it doesn't mean it will be implemented in-game it will probably get put in the gaijivault with all the other sekrit dokumentz that gaijin has been concealing so they can control the information flow in order to assure game imbalance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
