Talk:T95 medium tank

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

The article requires a very strong revision as it is involved in self-contradiction. In the introduction it says T95 had siliceous cored armor, but in the description it says T95 had cast homogeneous armor. Since the two are mutually exclusive, it should be clarified which is true. I think the original writer of the article mixed up the composite armor elements developed for the M60AX with the T95. DTIC Assesment m60ax. In its current form, the article is sure to mislead readers. Gabor vasarus (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There remain some outstanding issues from my partial cleanup on 24 Jan 2011. The OPTAC system may have been a typo or transliteration error from the OPTAR system. Would someone more knowledgeable about the system please make a more definitive move. Also, the commander's vision blocks may or may not be periscopic, and I simply replaced the trade term for the armored glass with the generic term. Also, I'm uncertain if the vehicle had a turret basket and if the ammunition was stored on or off said basket, so I left that ambiguous. I'm afraid much of the language in the variants is still very clunky, and perhaps a table (Akin to the Russian language tank tables) would be appropriate to clean up the page. Michael F (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree that the article still needs ironing out. I am the one who translated the article from Russian, and I do acknowledge that there may be some errors. Also, because I am not a tank or military expert and translated the article purely for Wikipedia's sake, there may be some technical terms that were inaccurately translated from the corresponding Russian article, although I have double checked the article to make sure the content is correct. As for "OPTAC", its appears to stand for "Optical Target Acquisition and Cueing" - but that's all I could find using a quick Google search. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translation. I have very little ability to understand Russian, so I can't check the source material myself. I'm not really experienced with editing Wikipedia, so if I made any errors, I apologize. Michael F (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:T95 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]