The Black Eagle Tank

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-13 07:43pm

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article ... 06&lang=en

Ooh, the Russians are going to come after us!

This site is great for a few laughs,

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-13 07:47pm

The Black Eagle exists only as a single example prototype with no buyers. Far to little is known to make any worthwhile comparison. Hell decent photos are lacking.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-13 07:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Black Eagle exists only as a single example prototype with no buyers. Far to little is known to make any worthwhile comparison. Hell decent photos are lacking.

Yeah but, look at the forum replies!

The Abrams is nothing now... so say the crowd.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-05-13 07:51pm

The comments are hella amusing...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-13 07:51pm

Ooh. Great. So it can punch through 800mm of armor... so what? That's if the armor is perfectly perpendicular to the warhead... in other words, optimum conditions that you'll never find on a battlefield.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-13 07:55pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Yeah but, look at the forum replies!

The Abrams is nothing now... so say the crowd.

It's a bunch of idiots wanking off to their favorite equipment with absolutely no grasp on reality or the capabilities of anything. Nothing I haven't seen a billion times before nor anything worth reading even for amusement.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-13 07:56pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Yeah but, look at the forum replies!

The Abrams is nothing now... so say the crowd.
It's a bunch of idiots wanking off to their favorite equipment with absolutely no grasp on reality or the capabilities of anything. Nothing I haven't seen a billion times before nor anything worth reading even for amusement.

You know that, I know that, but reading their fantasies is great!

Check out the Russian guy who thinks the West will crumble within 10 years and we'll be begging for their support.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-13 07:57pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Ooh. Great. So it can punch through 800mm of armor... so what? That's if the armor is perfectly perpendicular to the warhead... in other words, optimum conditions that you'll never find on a battlefield.

Not to mention thats still not enough to defeat the M1A1HA over its frontal arc. But such things are lost on morons of this level.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-13 08:42pm

Nice toy (Who want to smash it.)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-05-13 09:03pm

trends
автор history guest в 14.05.2003 [00:30]

The trend for antitank measures is mobility. Mobility meant shoulder fired missiles in non US countries. The US uses expensive helicopters for launching shoulder fired missiles. At millions of dollars per copy the helicopters are too expensive a platform for launching relatively inexpensive missiles. Future launch platforms could include ultralight or light aircraft as launch platforms. The disadvantage of ultralight or light aircraft is that they have low survivability. The advantage is that they cost just a few thousand dollars compared to millions for advanced aircraft platforms. For the same money needed to produce a high performance platform a hundred ultralights can be made . With a hundred radar signatures in the sky and on the radar screen, issues becomes very complicated for all those monitoring events. The future belongs to the efficient. Efficiency includes the calculation for cost in any endeavor.

Wait till it gets shredded by AA cannons. Anyways, for us to implement that would be politically unacceptable, due to high casualties- more in line with human wave "strategy".

Besides it costs money to train people to fly the damn things, just to get killed very quickly.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-05-13 11:20pm

OMG! The Soviet death laser must have destroyed the Columbia!!!

War with Russia!!!!!

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-05-14 01:45am

Some Guy wrote:The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!

He must have gotten sick of the tech-wanking too...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 02:41am

Uraniun235 wrote:OMG! The Soviet death laser must have destroyed the Columbia!!!

War with Russia!!!!!

Been reading Defcon one by chance?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 02:48am

Pu-239 wrote: Wait till it gets shredded by AA cannons.

The Thai Army tested out powered Para gliders and a couple ultra light types to see if they'd have any use for military applications. They concluded that they would be venerable to handgun fire and everything above before promptly dropping the whole idea.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-14 04:21am

The Russian Army doesn't want the Black Eagle. As has already been said, it exists in prototype form alone. It does have good features though. It's main gun is just as good as the M256 120mm, being newer manufacture and longer than the previous 2A46M series guns, and it's not constrained by the carousel autoloader limitation on ammunition length, which means better performance, because the autoloader is bustle mounted. The heavy ERA is new (Kaktus ERA), it has an active protection system (Drozd-M/Drozd-2, depending on the source), and an advanced FCS.

Ooh. Great. So it can punch through 800mm of armor... so what? That's if the armor is perfectly perpendicular to the warhead... in other words, optimum conditions that you'll never find on a battlefield.

That cuts both ways.

The trend for antitank measures is mobility. Mobility meant shoulder fired missiles in non US countries. The US uses expensive helicopters for launching shoulder fired missiles. At millions of dollars per copy the helicopters are too expensive a platform for launching relatively inexpensive missiles. Future launch platforms could include ultralight or light aircraft as launch platforms. The disadvantage of ultralight or light aircraft is that they have low survivability. The advantage is that they cost just a few thousand dollars compared to millions for advanced aircraft platforms. For the same money needed to produce a high performance platform a hundred ultralights can be made . With a hundred radar signatures in the sky and on the radar screen, issues becomes very complicated for all those monitoring events. The future belongs to the efficient. Efficiency includes the calculation for cost in any endeavor.

This guy's an idiot. Even the Russians aren't doing that. Coz it's a dumb idea.

The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!

And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-05-14 05:39am

Dear oh dear. Yes the Black Eagle {prototype} is a nice looking machine.

So what?

Those vaunted Abrams tanks look like they're made of mechano. How come so many got destroyed by rpgs if they're so fuckin hot.

*falls over with laughter*

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-05-14 09:35am

at iraqwar.ru col. crackpot wrote:gee, that fancy tank sure is pretty. sadly that's all it will ever be...a pretty picture of a prototype that Russia can't afford to build. The Russian army would be better off if it used it's limited resources to actually pay and feed it's soldiers. soldiers cant fight if they are starving and won't fight if they aren't paid.
Even if this tank were to be built, it would never be made in sufficient numbers to remotelty threaten the thousands of Abrams tanks in the US. Nor even threaten the hundreds of Challengers in the UK or even the limited number of Merkava'a in Israel. Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: spend your tank money on borscht and spare parts for T-80's and don't go chasing dreams of the glory of yesteryear

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-14 09:53am

Col. Crackpot wrote:gee, that fancy tank sure is pretty. sadly that's all it will ever be...a pretty picture of a prototype that Russia can't afford to build. The Russian army would be better off if it used it's limited resources to actually pay and feed it's soldiers. soldiers cant fight if they are starving and won't fight if they aren't paid.

Exactly what they are doing, Colonel.

And as I said, the Russians don't *want* the Black Eagle. The real next generation design is secret, but exists (the defense minister saw the prototype back in 2000 at the Nizhniy Tagil tank plant, where it's built).

Even if this tank were to be built, it would never be made in sufficient numbers to remotelty threaten the thousands of Abrams tanks in the US.

War isn't lining up two sides tanks and smashing them into each other. As for the 8,000 M1s, it's actually much more than the US Army could ever hope to deploy in a theatre in one time. There are persistent calls to scrap thousands of them- they do eat up quite a lot of the maintenance budget. Regardless, Russia has little to fear from a ground invasion. The sheer preponderance of material, war stock reserves, and of course, the nuclear deterrent, means Russia is unassailable.

Nor even threaten the hundreds of Challengers in the UK or even the limited number of Merkava'a in Israel.

Erm no. Neither nation has sufficient tanks to pose a significant threat to the Russian Ground Forces, either on the offense or defense. Besides, what are we talking about here, exactly? A Russian offensive into Europe? Madness.

Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: spend your tank money on borscht and spare parts for T-80's and don't go chasing dreams of the glory of yesteryear

Major arms purchases of new equipment are not going to happen until 2010. It's in the official defense plan for this decade. All the money is going into upgrades of existing equipment.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-14 10:07am

What exactly is the T-95 for then? Just a technology demonstrator?

I heard of another tank with a smaller turret, higher speed, more hi-tech construction and active defences and missile ability, but I forget the name of the project.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-14 10:23am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:What exactly is the T-95 for then? Just a technology demonstrator?

The T-95 isthe new tank.

I heard of another tank with a smaller turret, higher speed, more hi-tech construction and active defences and missile ability, but I forget the name of the project.

Yeah, T-95. The T-95 will have an unmanned turret housing just the main gun, will be fed by an autoloader (new design, of course, the old carousel autoloader is only for the T-64/T-72/T-80 designs), while the 3-man crew will be in the hull, with no access to the turret- which will make the crew better protected than any other main battle tank crew, without question. The engine will be a diesel, probably 1,200-1,500hp, the weight will be in the 50-ton class, there'll be a new drivetrain/suspension system (to eliminate hull vibrations and make firing on the move easier). The main gun is supposed to be 152mm smoothbore. Which I really doubt, but the Russians had a 152mm tank main gun since the 1960s (the M-69 prototype- which was rifled). Personally, I suspect they'll arm it with an advanced 125mm cannon- the latest models are quite good, and then upgrade to an advanced design with ETC (Electrothermal chemical) tech. Next generation passive and explosive reactive armor, as well as active protection system of some kind is a definite.

For an idea of what it might look like, this is an M1 prototype with an unmanned turret:

Of course, American care for their old prototypes, captured war trophies, and museum pieces is almost uniformly atrocious.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-14 10:34am

Will the new Russian tank be able to fire a missile via autoloader?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-14 10:50am

Vympel wrote:
The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.

::snicker::

I wonder what he thinks the M1A2's fire control computer uses. I doubt it even has anything better than an i80386-class processor.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-14 10:51am

D'oh! I fell into the naming trap of referring to the Black Eagle as the T-95 like some online have. Now I know why I forgot, I kept thinking the damn Black Eagle was the T-95.

It's one of those days...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-14 10:54am

Axis Kast wrote:Will the new Russian tank be able to fire a missile via autoloader?

Unsure. Probably- the increased calibre would allow for a much more powerful missile. But, when you're throwing around 152mm APFSDS and HEAT, it might not be an issue. Also, the missile capability dramatically increases cost (so much so that the T-64B1 and T-72B1 were manufactured as dedicated variants without the missile- Kobra and Svir respectively). They're still cranking out the missiles for older designs- a T-55/T-62 upgrade offered by KBP gives those two museum pieces the capability of launching a laser-guided Arcan ATGM out to 6,000m- almost double the range of TOW-2 (3,750m).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-14 10:54am

phongn wrote:
Vympel wrote:
The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.
::snicker::

I wonder what he thinks the M1A2's fire control computer uses. I doubt it even has anything better than an i80386-class processor.

Yeah, they seem to forget that these computers are meant to be simple and only run a machine of death, not the latest 3DFX copy of Counterstrike.