Talk:Black Eagle (tank)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Eagle (tank) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

There is no such tank

Acting head of Military-scientific committee of armored weapons of Ministry of Defence Vladimir Vojtov has declared that the newest tank under the name "Black eagle" - about which Russian media has written before - does not exist.

As he said, images of a black eagle are some 20-year-old photos, and "only a mockup model of a fighting vehicle of the future for which someone dreams", quotes V.Vojtov's words "Moscow Echo ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.52 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lead says it "is a prototype", and not a production tank. Hohum (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something never built even as a single working sample, can still be somehow considered "prototype" ? YF-23 is a prototype, Su-47 can be considered prototype, both are operational working models. I don't understand how mockup model can be considered prototype.

Perhaps, it depends if you provide a link to a published reference to what was actually said. Hohum (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check it here:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090913/156108570.html

I have pictures of it will upload them shortly taken in late 90's at Ural Arms Fair on the move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:EB80:8D00:951F:4A97:F9F4:B26C (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included this denial into the article. Hohum (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

its frontal armour is said to be equivalent to 1000 mm of steel against an APFSDS projectile

If no one can replace the weasel words "is said to be" with a respectable source, this speculative statement should be removed. —Michael Z. 2005-10-21 20:52 Z

What happened to the picture of the tank? There is no reason given in the history section of this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superknijn (talk • contribs) .

The uploaded image had already been deleted because it was lacking copyright info, leaving a broken image link in this article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-5 18:33 Z

Why are we bothering with this article? An unfinished project, with no complete prototypes from a bankrupt company which the Russian army has already rejected and NO custumers. Fancy claims from Russian sources ( yet again ) do not make this tank any more than a dead project. 145.253.108.22 17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and edit more worthwhile subjects. Readers will come to Wikipedia interested in this dead project, and so I will continue to make sure that they get verifiable, cited facts about it. Hope that doesn't bother you. —Michael Z. 2006-12-05 17:51 Z

Sorry didn't mean to sound so hostile. I simply meant why so much discussion and detail on a dead project. 145.253.108.22 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so offended, just don't see the point in poo-pooing a topic just because it doesn't interest you. But perhaps that indicates that the article doesn't adequately address its importance.

The Black Eagle is the most advanced tank development yet demonstrated in Russia. Some day a new Russian tank will be fielded—it may be based on this one, and will probably incorporate some lessons of this design. It is concrete evidence of the direction Russian tank designers are investigating. And because there is so little information about it, it's important to examine the verifiable published facts carefully, to avoid stating rumours and hearsay as fact. —Michael Z. 2006-12-07 20:00 Z

Conjecture

"Covered with multi-layered explosive reactive armour, its frontal armour is said to be equivalent to 1000 mm of steel against a [shaped charge] projectile, making it one of the most heavily protected tanks in the world. However, reactive armour does not protect against kinetic penetrators, and many shaped charge weapons are binary explosives; two charges one after another to defeat reactive armour. Its gun can pierce 1000 mm armor, while best western tank Abrams has 800 mm front armor, 152 mm gun is a type of gun that was mounted on battleships" [my emphasis]

Is there a single verifiable fact in this paragraph? "Is said to be" is a meaningless weasel phrase. Every modern MBT is "one of the most heavily protected tanks in the world". The discussion of binary explosives is not particularly relevant to this tank. We don't even know what its gun is, so how can we know how much armour it can pierce. Is there a reference for the Abrams' front armour? What model is the 152mm gun, which "is not being outfitted on this model"? —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 05:44 Z

Almost everything written about this tank is just conjecture. We should make some kind of warning in the first paragraph saying that no official information about the tank has been released by anyone involved in making it. All the talk about the 152mm gun and the armor thickness are all just rumors that have been floating around the internet for almost 10 years now. DarthJesus 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that all versions of the 'Black Eagle' that have are available to public view are armed with a Russian 125mm gun, not a 152mm gun. In fact, I hold my reservations about even the T-95 using a gun between 135mm and 152mm. From what I've read the increase in muzzle velocity does not justify the increase in weight and cost, and there are newer technologies that are being matured that will give increase in muzzle energy to beyond that of a 140mm gun without the rise in weight. My point being, I doubt any Black Eagle has been fitted with a 152mm, and what we can prove is that all known images have been of a Black Eagle turret on a T-80 chassis, with a 125mm gun. Given from the size of the turret fitting a 152mm gun inside there might prove to be just a tad difficult. JonCatalan 22:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you should notice that neither of these tanks (T-95, Black Eagle) exist...nor they will, imho. Sure, they were under development, but the end of the CCCP meant the end for the T-95 project, while the acceptance of T-90 into Russian service was the end for the Black Eagle.

ERA

"However, reactive armour does not protect against kinetic penetrators, and many shaped charge weapons are binary explosives; two charges one after another to defeat reactive armour." The Russians have Kontakt-5 which protects against KE penetrators. Dudtz 1/30/06 5:46 PM ESTWhat about the new KE penetrators designed to penatrate the Kontakt-5.(Uber555 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)) Yea, but you still have the standard armour underneath,and the tank crews might add on,more armour. Dudtz 2/22/06 6:21 PM EST So why is that statement still there?(Uber555 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What new KEP round designed to defeat heavy ERA? I don't think more armour can be added by the crew, to tell you the truth. They certainly can't put on more on top of the Kontakt-5, or whatever other ERA might be fitted (Polish ERAWA, Russian K-1, Relikt or what have you, et cetera). JonCatalan 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They could put the ERA over the additional armour. Dudtz 3/2/07 9:94 PM ET

All existing Black Eagle prototypes (turret over T-80 chassis) already carry the universal ERA: not sure, but it's either Relikt or K-5. Regardless, I don't think the crew can add new heavy ERA panels to a tank, even if they weren't already on. It's not an easy upgrade. JonCatalan 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

125mm

The M1A1 does not have a 125 it is armed with a 120mm main gun(and I should freaking know I was a loader in a M1!)

I don't believe the article says so. —Michael Z. 2008-06-30 15:44 z

ukraine conflict

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1506006447116718085 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.160.252 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8umcgk/object_640_black_eagle_a_soviet_experimental_tank/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.160.252 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but what's the connection between the T-80UM2 and the Black Eagle? It's not a connection that I've seen many combat vehicle historians make. Schierbecker (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The drive makes the connection in a fairly lengthy article although it considers the T-80UM2 to be a prototype for the black eagle. There is currently a bit of a fuss about this because the telegram channel "Tankists of the Southern Military District" has been claiming Russia is going to send black eagle tanks to Ukraine and people have picked up on this. Been suggested that they mean T-80UE-1 which is at least something that actualy exists.©Geni (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]