Black Eagle - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By starman2003
#184372
I heard somewhere that the Black Eagle is a joint Russia-ROK project and will feature a 140mm gun and titanium armor, and 90% ERA cover. I guess it is/will be more of a match for the M-1 and Merkava.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#184461
Sounds expensive and sounds more like mobile artillery then a tank.

A 140mm cannon? Why? Whats the point? There is such a thing as overkill and a 140mm cannon on a tank is an example ...

Titanium armor? You mean the tank itself will be titanium or it will have a titanium plate around it? Whats wrong with the armor currently being used?

How heavy will it need to be in order to compensate for the kick of a 140mm cannon? And will titanium help with that?

Will it be able to move and fire or will it have to stop like the Palidin?

Any links of this piece of armor or is this all hearsay?

And the name 'Black Eagle' would be better suited for an aircraft ... not a massive tank but thats just me.
User avatar
By starman2003
#184931
I heard that on the tanknet. Yeah, 140mm does seem too big for a tank but it wouldn't be surprising considering that calibers of tank guns have increased over the years from 37mm/50mm to 75mm/88mm (WWII) to 100/105mm to 115mm/120mm/125mm. Even 125mm shells were inadaquate against M-1 armor in 1991. The armor is said to include a titanium layer, and the term Black Eagle does refer to a tank.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#185398
Even 125mm shells were inadaquate against M-1 armor in 1991.


Its not about size ... After 105mm what matters is the ammo being used and the accuracy of the vehicle/gun firing it.

but it wouldn't be surprising considering that calibers of tank guns have increased over the years from 37mm/50mm to 75mm/88mm (WWII) to 100/105mm to 115mm/120mm/125mm.


It really wasnt in that order you know ...

Its true that original tanks started out with small infantry guns stuck in a turret or a hole and slowly developed into larger and better capable guns but the Soviets and the US both experimented with massive tanks with massives guns, hell sometimes the designs even called for two main guns ...

The reason we dont have any 155mm mbt's is because its just too big to justify ... and its not practical. The kick from a 105mm+ gun is rather big for a vehicle to take ... now a gun that is 130mm+ will need to be very heavy ... 140mm+ and it needs to be super heavy ... plus the added wear and tear on the firing system ... and of course ammo ... just like a soldier can carry more 5.56 then he can 7.62 NATO a tank can carry more 105's then 155's ...

I just dont see a 140mm gun being feasible nor required.
User avatar
By starman2003
#185594
A 140mm gun wouldn't be much heavier than the 120mm/125mm guns long in use. The old Soviet SU-152 had a 152mm gun although it was an assault gun not a MBT.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#367662
I think its an export model. I've seen pictures of it. The thing is a monster.

It's certainly no mobile artillery. Mobile artillery is much easier to destroy.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#367678
This thing will be easy enough to destroy. It will be slow, gunships and bombs will rip it to pieces.
User avatar
By starman2003
#368280
Boondock Saint wrote:This thing will be easy enough to destroy. It will be slow, gunships and bombs will rip it to pieces.


Not if it's part of a combined or integrated arms team, including mobile SAMS or AAA. Part titanium armor should make it pretty survivable for a tank.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#368407
Should?

I dont know man ... now your tossing AAA and SAM's and now your talking more and more money and resources for a feckin oversized tank that probably will be too heavy for most infrastructure ...

The point I am trying to make is how practical is it?
By Vassili Zaitsev
#373854
All right, heres some facts on the M1A2 Abrams and the Black Eagle:

American newest M1A2 tank:

Crew - 4 men, loader included (man, are we living in 1950ies???).

Mass - 69,54 tons (that's pretty bad if you want to cross swampy terrain or little bridges - or if you want to transport tanks via jets).

Size - 7,92 meters X 3,65 meters (large one, perfect target for missiles).

Height - 2,43 meters (wow, even larger! Good target for RPG-7).

Main cannon - 120-mm (can use depleted uranium shells).

Additional armament - two light machine guns and one heavy machine gun.

Drive - gas turbine "AGT-1500", around 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 67 kilometers per hour (slower than Russian counterpart).

Range - 450 kilometers (50 kilometers less, than Russian counterpart).


Russian newest "Black Eagle" main battle tank:

Crew - 3 men (just like on any good modern tank).

Mass - 48 tons (easy to transport, can cross almost any bridge or terrain with broad tracks).

Size - 7 meters X 3,6 meters (small, hard to hit).

Height - 2 meters (low profile means high survivability).

Main cannon - 152-mm (AP, or tandem-HEAT, etc, or even firing HEAVY MISSILES from main gun).

Machine gun - 7,62-mm.

Heavy automatic cannon - remote-controlled, can attack air targets.

Additional weaponry - "Igla-2" SAMs, fuel-air artillery rockets, guided anti-tank rockets.

Drive - gas turbine, over 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 70 kilometers per hour.

Range - over 500 kilometers.


The fact is that "Black Eagle" is the best tank in the world - in ALL ways.

For example, M1A2 cannot effectively function in sandstorms or low temperature (remember Gulf War!) - while "Black Eagle" is universal.

M1A2 uses human loader (what a primitivism!!!), while "Black Eagle" uses robotic reloading device, which can rapidly switch between different types of ammunition.

M1A2 relies only on composite armor, while "Black Eagle" has not just better multilayer armor, but but explossive reactive armor, and in most cases won't even give projectile chance to approach the tank, intercepting it from distance.

With "Arena" system, "Black Eagle" can shoot down incoming shells and rockets. Americans cannot even dream of such technology.

M1A2 cannot effectively fight air targets, while "Black Eagle" has internal SAMs and AAAs.

"Black Eagle" cannon, even in earlier, 125-mm (not modern 152-mm) version is more powerful than M1A2, because it uses tandem ("double-strike") shells, which guarantee destruction, while M1A2 depleted uranium does not gives 100% success on destroying targets, and are much more costly, and are radioactive. But modern version of "Black Eagle" is armed with 152-mm cannon! This is the caliber of HEAVY ARTILLERY!

"Black Eagle" main gun can use wide amount of ammo - from classic AP-shells to heavy guided fuel-air artillery guided rockets with firepower equal to mini-nuke.

"Black Eagle" is smaller, faster and stealthier, and can cross more types of terrain than M1A2 because of small mass (48 tons) and wide tracks with terrain-adaptation capability.

"Black Eagle" can fight electronic warfare by its own, while M1A2 cannot.

Production of M1A2 requires large amount of metals and energy (American armor requires lots of energy to be produced), and takes lots of time, while "Black Eagles" can be rolled out of factories en masse.

Accuracy and maneurability of "Black Eagle" is astonishing - it can jump to the air and fire in air (during jumping), hitting the target! While M1A2 cannot even jump!

Also, range of "Black Eagle" main gun is great - on the level of howitzers.

Russian "Black Eagle" is choice of true professional - best tank in the world. In all ways.


The Black Eagle tank is also built upon a T-80U chassis, here some model pics of it:

Image

Image

Image

And a picture of the real thing:
Image

Some old information on the Black Eagle can be found here, though the information is out-of-date: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

I also got my info here: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=593
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#373865
M1A1/2 - Battle tested.

Black Eagle - Not.

So all claims about how great it is are based on tests and excercises ... everything looks good and works perfectly till of course people are actually shooting at you.

One thing was left out ... I wont pretend I know the answer but whats the price?

As for the manual loader on the abrams ... the US did that intentionally, they just feel its better.
User avatar
By MB.
#373870
Boondock Saint wrote:M1A1/2 - Battle tested.


The M1 for sure, but- excuse my ignorance- where has the A2 served?
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#373875
The 4th ID (mechanized) has A2's and is indeed in Iraq. So really I can only assume that the division brought all their tanks with them.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#373881
The Black Eagle is a great MBT, but the Indian armed forces will likely use it not the Russian armed forces and not that Russia wouldn't like to; they just don't want to pay for it. They would rather have someone else buy it, like India.
User avatar
By starman2003
#374631
You'd think that the most lucrative market for the Black Eagle would be the Arab states. Has Libya ordered any? Syria undoubtdly would love a batch but currently can't sfford new platforms just upgrades.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#375202
The Black Eagle is a great MBT


Says who? How many battles has it been in?

The Sherman looked great to US troops too ... until of course it faced a panther ...

And I dont think any arab states will be upgrading their armor forces anytime soon ...
By immortallove
#375808
Excuse American-style overenthusiasm but that's a hell of a tank. How can you argue:

M1A1/2 - Battle tested.

Black Eagle - Not.


The Black Eagle is more accomplished and polished in every single way, leaving nothing behind, almost as if it was designed to be an abrams-beater. Hell, it can jump, meaning creating another axis of motion in the enemy crosshair and it can leap antitank ditches and it can shoot over a ridge. And it can outmanoeuvre the m1a1 on any surface too, while simultaneously turning it into smouldering swiss cheese with those beautiful tandemHEAT rounds.

Welcome to the future of Armoured warfare baby. It's cheap - its being built on a chassis which already exists, meaning the production chain is about 40% in place without lifting a finger.

Excuse me for a moment, it's all too much...
User avatar
By starman2003
#377193
Very interesting. How would the Black Eagle fare against the Israeli Merkava? About as well as it would gainst the M1 I guess.
User avatar
By Boondock Saint
#377660
The Black Eagle is more accomplished and polished in every single way


Where do you get this information?

And how is a MBT more accomplished when it has never seen open warfare when compared to a MBT which HAS seen open warfare in two invasions?

Look, I am not saying that the black eagle doesnt have the potential to be the best ... what I am saying is that its not proven. Hell, its not even tried!

And what do you mean how can I argue that?

The M-1 Abrams which is a rather old tank these days is indeed battle tested. The black eagle which is still a prototype tanks is not ...

Unless you know of some war that the black eagle has been involved in that I dont know about?

And its not cheap! Its about 3x the price of the new T variety tank ...

So far all anyone can do is act like a fanboi of this tank ... no one is using logic ... no ones using facts.

Everything that is a selling point for the black eagle is based on the manufacturers word on it ...

I bet those who make the Stryker can convince you the Stryker is the greatest thing to join the modern battlefield ... but stick on the modern battlefield and find out the truth ...
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#377866
Why is the Black Eagle built on the T-80U chassis instead of the more modern T-92U?

It should also be noted that the US has chosen not to use reactive armor on the M1, as the chobham armor is so thick as to make it virtually impervious to any threats it faces on the battlefield. The M60, before it was retired, was outfitted with reactive armor. Though, if any "targets for regime change" acquire the Black Eagle and its 152mm main gun, that may change.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

^ His lies are creative at least, I'll give him th[…]

Yes, because the Palestinian resistance have a his[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]