It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black eagle tank without covers.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
entirely an initiative of Omsk Plant. It originates from the now-closed Nikolai Popov's design bureau at Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ)




oh no its Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.


the black eagle may be indeed T-80um2

T-80UM2

The latest version of the T-80U being developed is the T-80UM2, which is designed to engage targets while stationary or on the move. It has a new all-welded cast steel turret with ERA on the hull front and turret, an automatic loading system and relocation of the ammunition to the turret bustle for improved survivability. Other improvements include a computerised fire control system, thermal imaging sights for commander and gunner, and the Arena active countermeasures system.




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If you post material found on other websites or forums use quotes or italics on the pasted portions and always post your sources with a link.


Originally posted by Hocico
State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998...

Uralvagonzavod Main Battle Tank - FAS.org


Originally posted by Hocico
The latest version of the T-80U being developed is the T-80UM2, which is designed to engage targets while stationary or on the move...

Army Technology - T 80U - Main Battle Tank



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
ARGHHH

The Black Eagle DOES NOT HAVE AN UNMANNED TURRET. IT HAS A CONVENTIONAL LAYOUT AND A 125MM GUN!!

THE T-95 HAS A 152MM GUN AND AN UNMANNED TURRET

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT TANKS



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
ARGHHH

The Black Eagle DOES NOT HAVE AN UNMANNED TURRET. IT HAS A CONVENTIONAL LAYOUT AND A 125MM GUN!!

THE T-95 HAS A 152MM GUN AND AN UNMANNED TURRET

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT TANKS



thanks for informing us sergei ivanov



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
i had a similar argument with my mate over the t-80 and the blakc eagle.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Formidable looking tank.specially with the prominint gun,sloped armour somewhat resembling the JS3, side plates and reactive armour.
But a crewless turret.Sure,use all the imaging equipment you can get your hands on,but the commander is huddled below in a cubicle.What happens if the imaging equipment gets damaged? Can the commander go to the top of the turret? Sometimes you have to use your "nose" to guage the circumstances.Instinct.
The machine guns...are they remote controlled as well? All exposed and no coaxial like the Abrams?
I just don't think all that jostling is good for so much electronic equipment.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Look at the friggin turret. It's bigger then other friggin Russian tanks so why would it be unmanned? The tank has a turret bustle for storing ammo, Abrams style. But why would it need to store ammo like that unless THERE ARE CREW IN THE TURRET? It's a heavily modernized T-80, the designation is T-80UM2 I believe. The gun IS a new model 125mm.

YOU KNOW WHY I KNOW THIS, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS RELEASED MORE THEN A YEAR AGO!!.

THE T-95 IS THE DESIGN WITH THE UNMANNED TURRET. It is the future Russian tank, the BE is for export.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Kozzy]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
Look at the friggin turret. It's bigger then other friggin Russian tanks so why would it be unmanned? The tank has a turret bustle for storing ammo, Abrams style. But why would it need to store ammo like that unless THERE ARE CREW IN THE TURRET? It's a heavily modernized T-80, the designation is T-80UM2 I believe. The gun IS a new model 125mm.

YOU KNOW WHY I KNOW THIS, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS RELEASED MORE THEN A YEAR AGO!!.

THE T-95 IS THE DESIGN WITH THE UNMANNED TURRET. It is the future Russian tank, the BE is for export.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Kozzy]


There have been enough links posted to clarify the situation, if only people would read them.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Why the is the gun 152mm? Does it also fire missiles? It seems a bit wide for high-velocity anti-tank ammo. God knows what type of firepower it'd take to pierce the front armor on an Abrams.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Why the is the gun 152mm? Does it also fire missiles? It seems a bit wide for high-velocity anti-tank ammo. God knows what type of firepower it'd take to pierce the front armor on an Abrams.


yea, unless they are going to fire missiles out of it (which the army will tried to do years ago) it it really necessary? Unless you intend to use it as defact self propelled artillery, then why the need for such a huge main gun? To get through the front slope of a M1A2SEP will require a sabot round at high velocity (if that) and unless they have a new breech / shell propellant, can they get the veloity they need?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The 152-mm gun design is probably made to fire missiles, with conventional shells resembling artillery.

A 152-mm gun design was in place on the MBT-70 which was the failed precursor to the M1 Abrams

www.battletanks.com...

Here's pictures of what might be the only MBT-70 left at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds tank display. I'd call it a museum, but all the tanks are outside in the open air, even some of the rare German stuff



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
The old US Army M551 Sheridan had a gun/missile system firing laser guided Shileigh(?) missiles. However its weight of 20 tonnes didn't alow for the recoil force of the gun, making it very uncomfortable for the crew. It saw service in the 70's and was then withdrawn.
A gun of this size would be much more stable on an MBT.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
The old US Army M551 Sheridan had a gun/missile system firing laser guided Shileigh(?) missiles. However its weight of 20 tonnes didn't alow for the recoil force of the gun, making it very uncomfortable for the crew. It saw service in the 70's and was then withdrawn.
A gun of this size would be much more stable on an MBT.


Shillelagh Missiles

The Sheridan is still in use by the 82nd airborne since it's so light.

Also used in Opfor at the NTC.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
The Sheridan is still in use by the 82nd airborne since it's so light.
Also used in Opfor at the NTC.


The Sheridan has been pulled from the 82nt. The XMS was to be the replacement but was canceled



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Don't modern era Russian tanks already fire ATGMs?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordofLard
Don't modern era Russian tanks already fire ATGMs?


they can trough the main cannon I think



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
It has been tried people! Firing missiles through the bore! The Shillelagh,the Copperhead and you dropped it!
Why do you want a tank to fire an anti aircraft missile?
"Just in case."
Then just in case,give it an anti ship missile! Or an anti-tank missile! Why? You already have an anti tank GUN there!
Can the Bradley take out a tank with its missiles? Maybe,if it got the first shot in.But whose optics are more superiour? That was the problem we had with the Gaermans in WW2 remember? Guns like the 128mm (ancient technology) scoring 7km hits.No anti tank missile i think goes that far....



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge

Can the Bradley take out a tank with its missiles? Maybe,if it got the first shot in.But whose optics are more superiour? That was the problem we had with the Gaermans in WW2 remember? Guns like the 128mm (ancient technology) scoring 7km hits.No anti tank missile i think goes that far....


1. Bradley's destroyed much more vehicles than Abrams tanks during GW1.
2. Some misilles could go that far - Helfire, future Joint Common misille, and some russian ones too.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by longbow]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well if I was in charge of military procurements for a small to medium size country, I sure as h**l would not be purchasing new main battle tanks for my army that's for sure!

It was proven in the last 2 Gulf wars that the main battle tank was a sitting duck for a 3rd world country using tank warfare by attack from fixed, non-fixed winged aircraft and handheld antitank weaponry.

Sure, main battle tanks are a great weapon when used against a foot soldier and or light infantry and they look impressive in a parade,

But to a modern military the main battle tank is an easy target and would become toast in a very short time. Unless you are Russia, UK and the USA you will not win a tank battle against these countries and your money would be better spent elsewhere.

Anyway, what in the world is South Korea doing purchasing offensive military products anyway. shouldn't SK be setting its self up to defend from a tank invasion by purchasing A-10 type aircraft and or antitank helicopters and looking to fend off a ROK invasion?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge

Can the Bradley take out a tank with its missiles? Maybe,if it got the first shot in.But whose optics are more superiour? That was the problem we had with the Gaermans in WW2 remember? Guns like the 128mm (ancient technology) scoring 7km hits.No anti tank missile i think goes that far....


A TOW equipped Bradley can easily take out a tank, we have seen what a RPG can do to a M1.


Originally posted by longbow

1. Bradley's destroyed much more vehicles than Abrams tanks during GW1.
2. Some misilles could go that far - Helfire, future Commond misille, and some russian ones too.


Almost all modern ATGM's have a range over 10km.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join