Talk:Tsar Tank

"portrayal in media/name"
A model of the Tsar tank in "October; Ten days that shook the World"? No, Its an artillery piece. And is there any actual evidence that those things in Star Wars are based on it?

Also, it seems that originally, it was named "Lebedenko", rather than "Tsar Tank".

Yes, the supposed Lebedenko in the film is actually a large, heavy gun. I have removed the reference.

Hengistmate (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted?
Great. I just got finished cleaning up a good part of this page, and I've just noticed that the version that I started with was nearly identical to the one at. When I find a page that hasn't been at all Wikified (as this one was), I usually Google for a line or two out of the text to make sure that it isn't just copied-and-pasted from somewhere; but, this site didn't come up. Once I started digging around for more information, I ran across it.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I'd hate to see this page get dumped because it's based, in large part, on copyrighted text.

Thanks --Milkmandan 14:22, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * Looking further, I'm guessing that that page was based, in large part, off this one: . Still, this doesn't help clean up the matter.  --Milkmandan 14:25, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like this is going nowhere. Additionally, it looks like whoever added this page has since deleted my question from their talk page. --Milkmandan 01:22, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)


 * I would just like to appologise, to everyone here. I'm very new to wikipedia, and realized I don't know how to use it, as well as I had hoped. I'm also sorry for the slow responses. I didn't mean to delete those messages. I'm not that great at figuring out how they worked. Anyway, I've realized that I'm way over my head, so I'm no longer going to be wiki-ing. I appologise to everyone whom I have caused any stress or problems. Atomic645

My dear Mikkalai, do you not agree with me on these facts:
 * Thank you for talking here. You introduced changes without explanations. I had some reasons to write what I wrote. I

1. The Netopyr is not the rather diminutive Pipistrellus but Europe's largest bat, the noctule Nyctalus lasiopterus. Or perhaps some new taxonomic analysis shows it's P. lasiopterus?
 * I am not an expert in bats, but several articles and dictionaries I checked translate netopyr as pipistrellus. I found this a bit strange, too. If you have better knowledge, please correct. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked a bit more and Nyctalus seem correspond to "&#1074;&#1077;&#1095;&#1077;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1094;&#1072;", which makes a linguistic sense. But again, I'm no expert in bats. Mikkalai 08:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2. The measure of 12 metres does not refer to the height of the vehicle - obviously, as the wheels form the highest point and they have a diameter (not radius!) of just nine. Rather it is the width of the hull, itself five metres above ground-level. It was this "wingspan" that gave it the name Netopyr.
 * Please look at the references given in the articles. They have pictures and detailed size data. If you disagree with them, please provide your reference. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I doublechecked with Russian sources. It seems that the references quoted in the article have width and height interchanged. Thanks for pointing that out. I shoud have been forewarned: they had the name garbled. Mikkalai 08:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. Manoeuvrability is spelled manoeuvrability?
 * Sorry. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a rather puzzled MWAK--84.27.81.59 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I was too. Next time, when making noticeable changes of facts please explain them, with references. Also, I see you (or, rather, your IP :-) are editing quite a lot. Please get yourself a name. It takes only two minutes to register, but gives a number of conveniences. Mikkalai 08:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just a lazy fellow, I fear...;o)
 * Don't you know that lazy fellows are the driving force of progress that delivers all these conveniences? :-) So son't hesitate to use them. Mikkalai 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now on the subject of bats. I'm not an expert on them either, so today I contacted an acquaintance of mine who is. He smugly informed me you were absolutely right and I was completely wrong. Netopyr is indeed the Russian name of the genus Pipistrellus. But he also gave a possible explanation for the incongruity of choosing the name of a small bat for such a large vehicle. It seems that, apart from the present technical sense of the word, in (older) colloquial Russian netopyr simply meant "big bat" (smaller species then being referred to as kozyan) and related words are used in many Slavic languages for just "bat". Of course solving the problem this way creates a new one: why should Russian biologists use the name big bat for a smaller genus?

MWAK--84.27.81.59 08:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Size has nothing to do with the nickname. It is shape. The small model was convenient to carry grabbed by the rear wheel. The hanging model looked just like a bat asleep. "Where are you carrying this bat?" Mikkalai 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see :o) But then netopyr was at the time (or is still?) a general word for bat?

MWAK--84.27.81.59 06:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The usage varied in time, together with general changes in taxonomy. According to Vladimir Dahl's vocabulary, it was a general term in Central Russia, and Dahl gives the modern widespread general Russian term "letuchaya mysh" ("flying mouse") as Southern. He gives a number of other bat's names as connotational with netopyr, which now are classified as separate genera. Brockhaus and Efron write that it is a family. Great Soviet Encyclopedia says it is a genus. The latin term changed over time as well. Mikkalai 17:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That makes things much clearer to me. I thank you for your effort. The Dutch article I'll change accordingly. And I've decided to be a little less lazy:

--MWAK 09:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency in text
The article says it was developed 1916-1917. It then goes on to say that it was a fiasco at a demonstration in August 1915. Can someone who knows something about this contraption fix the date discrepancy? Thanks. Larry Dunn (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

star wars?
i read that the IG-227 Hailfire-class droid tank from star wars [ http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/IG-227_Hailfire-class_droid_tank ] was based off this. could we add this to the media section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.19.158 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if we get sources for this. FWIW, it might just as well have been the Kugelpanzer, which looks much more similar in design. Then again, who cares? -- DevSolar (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Moore ref removed as unreliable
I dont know about other tanks, but he scraped info about Lebedenko tank from various websites, uncritically. Evidence: Not to say that "The History Press" publisher is far from being of academic quality. Therefore I removed this book as a ref. - Altenmann >talk 20:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * wrong tank name I've seen on one website
 * funny thing: he (or someone else he ripped off) scraped some info from a very old version of this article, where I inserted a piece of "original research"; I deleted it later when wikipedia rules became much more stringent in this respect. Basically, I removed an instance of wrong "citogenesis".


 * He's probably not getting it from wikipedia. Google books has the name making it into a couple of other books  and the jump may have happened via https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.php?armor_id=827#specifications . However the Russian version of the name can be traced back to 1947 and also appears in this book in 2002. So we can't draw conclusions on the reliability since it could have been pulled from the russian although in practice I suspect that by 2017 the name was just generaly floating around.©Geni (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok having done some further digging I can trace "танк Лебеденко" back further than Царь-танк. However I'm starting to suspect that both names are well post war. For example this 1943 source goes with just Нетопырь.©Geni (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for a piece sloppiness, I was not specific which name: it was "Nepotir". No big difference for a non-Russian :-) Sorry for extra work you've just done. By the way, now that we are at it, the explanation of "tsar Tank" was highly dubious. AFAIK the "tsar" name popped up when the Soviets started over-hypeing Russian technical contributions and named it in an analogy with Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell, etc, for its monnstrous size, kinda "the father of all tanks". Clearly, the contemporaries knew better to call a failure "tsar". - Altenmann >talk 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Soviet propaganda pushed Porokhovschikov's work as the father of all tanks. The Vezdekhod. Tsar Tank name was probably just due to size. The Nepotir name probably comes via http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/Lebedenko.html (Moore lists landships as a source which has been using the name since at least Nov 2003 if you are referring to the origin of the bat name that had already made it into Russia at War: From the Mongol Conquest to Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Beyond. Pretty much everything about this tank is a very long game of telephone. That said Moore's area of expertise is the location of WW1 tanks that still exist so its understandable that he may not be particularly reliable in this area.©Geni (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nepotir is corrupted Netopyr (just to be 100% clear), the latter name for the machine is well-known. Yes, the origin of "bat name" is my speculation, coming from a vivid imagination :-) It does fit, doesn't it? So far no serious evidence for my guess. In 50 more year it will harden in truthiness :-) - Altenmann >talk 03:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)