Talk:T-84: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
b-class fail |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=low}} |
||
{{WPMILHIST |
{{WPMILHIST |
||
|class= |
|class=start |
||
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|||
|B-Class-1= no |
|||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|||
|B-Class-2= yes |
|||
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|||
|B-Class-3= yes |
|||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|||
|B-Class-4= yes |
|||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|||
|B-Class-5= yes |
|||
|importance= Mid |
|importance= Mid |
||
|portal= |
|portal= |
Revision as of 21:59, 11 March 2008
![]() | Ukraine B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How many have been built?
How many have been built? If anyone knows, please add it to the article (YoungRoger 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
Category:Russian and Soviet tanks
User:AKMask added category:Russian and Soviet tanks to this article, with the edit summary:
- It's a development of a russian/soviet base, I believe the category helps with finding it. And the Ukraineian development is in the first sentence, so its not confusing
While I understand AKMask's justification for ease of finding Soviet-legacy AFVs, we haven't been using categories this way. If we did, for example, the following copies and derivatives of Soviet tanks would belong in this category or equivalent ones, and I don't think a single one is. Likewise, the Ukrainian BTR-94 also doesn't belong in category:Russian and Soviet armored personnel carriers. Categories are clearly used to group AFVs by country of origin or main country of employment (sometimes both).
- China: Type 59 (T-54A clone), Type 62 (scaled-down T-54A clone), Type 69/79 (Type 59 derivative with T-62 features), Type 96 (Type 69 derivative with T-72 features), Type 99 (advanced T-72 copy),Type 63 (PT-76 derivative)
- Croatia: M-84 (T-72 copy), M-95 Degman (M-84 derivative)
- Iran: Zulfiqar MBT?, T-72Z Safir-74, Boragh (BMP copy)
- Iraq: Lion of Babylon tank (T-72 copy)
- Israel: IDF Achzarit APC on T-55 chassis, Shoet APC (APC based on BTR-152)
- Pakistan: MBT 2000 ('Al Kalid', advanced T-72 copy), Al-Zarar MBT (advanced Type 59)
- Poland: PT-91 (advanced T-72 copy), PT-94 (PT-91 derivative?)
- Romania: TR-580 (T-54/55 derivative), TR-85 (advanced T-54/55 derivative)
- Yugoslavia: BOV APC
To be clear: the original features distinguishing the T-84 model were developed in independent Ukraine after the Soviet Union no longer existed, during the process of delivering T-80UD tanks to Pakistan, in order to make production independent of supplies from the Russian Federation. The T-84 was first built in 1994. The original design was based on the earlier T-80UD, T-80, and T-64 tanks all designed and first built at the Malyshev Factory in Soviet Ukraine, although the current T-84 Oplot model is clearly not just an advanced T-80 but a fundamentally new tank. So, although the T-84 has a Soviet Ukrainian technical legacy, this model originates in independent Ukraine.
And Ukraine cannot be considered to have been part of Russia, at least since the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, so the T-84 is not by any stretch Russian.
I believe that that category:Russian and Soviet tanks should be split in two anyway, since there is no category for the Russian AFVs which are not Soviet ones, but the details of that are a separate question. —Michael Z. 2006-07-10 18:38 Z
- Well, Im not going to edit war over this, but would you mind listing this on the Wikiproject Military History talk for some further input? I may very well just be crazy here, and will most graciously concede that if it seems correct as is to those guys, but I'd like some people familiar with military development to weigh in :) -Mask
04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure—it would be good to re-examine that category. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Conflating Soviet/Russian in fighting vehicle categories. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 19:29 Z
- I don't really see a reason why this should be listed under Russian and Soviet tanks. The purpose of that category was to provide a means for people to be able to easily trace up/down categories and help link modern Russian vehicles to historical Soviet vehicles cleanly. Basically to help them conform with the way we do it for American or German vehicles, tracing back to one parent (Category:American tanks etc.). The parent isn't usually supposed to have any articles in it as it should go into one of the daughter categories for which major war-era's it was used in. Oberiko 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That makes sense. But how to satisfy AKMask's concerns? Category:Ukrainian armoured fighting vehicles does not belong under category:Russian and Soviet tanks. Perhaps there should be another sub-category category:Soviet-legacy armoured fighting vehicles, but this starts to get complicated. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 21:14 Z
- Also, perhaps category:Russian Empire armoured fighting vehicles should be split off on its own. It would only contain the Tsar Tank and Vezdekhod, which have little relationship to Soviet/CIS tank design and production. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 21:19 Z
Allright, I'm now satisfied that this doesn't belong in the Soviet/Russian cat... but there should be some country-specific category for it... Just seems kind of lost in its current categories. -Mask 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- And thats happened now. My concerns are addressed, thank you all :) -Mask
22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Specs
User:Deepak gupta added a {{fact}} template to the following statement, and questioned some of the specs in this article at user talk:Mzajac#T-90 and T-84:
- Its high-performance engine makes it one of the fastest existing MBTs in the world, with a power-to-weight ratio of about 25 horsepower per tonne (19 kW/t).
I'll try to address the issue here.
The T-84 is based on the T-80UD, a high-performance diesel-engined version of the gas turbine-powered T-80U.
Top speed: various sources publish top speeds for the T-84 of "65–70 km/h", "70 km/h", and "85 km/h".[1] The manufacturer's site states 65-70 km/h and 26 hp/t for the latest in-service T-84 Oplot,[2] 65 km/h and 25 hp/t for the prototype T-84-120 Yatagan.[3] These may or may not be recommended maximum speeds: Vasiliy Fofanov's page states the T-80U's "Max Road Speed: 70 km/h (governed)",[4] so it's not unreasonable to assume that other CIS tanks have engine governors built in to keep the tank to a speed that's safe for control of the vehicle and/or prevents excessive wear or danger of catastrophic suspension breakage (the U.S. M1 is likewise governed).
Power-to-weight ratio: I can't find a definitive citation at the moment, but the whole idea of the T-80 was to have a very high-performance gas turbine engine, to increase mobility. Apparently it was successful, with the T-80U's 27 hp/t power-to-weight ratio, compared to the T-72's 18 to 20 hp/t, earning it the moniker flying tank. The gas turbine had all kinds of problems, most notably severe fuel consumption, which were seen as trade-offs for increased performance. The initial T-80 had an unprecedented 1,000 hp engine in a 46-tonne tank, the T-80U increased that to 1,250 hp. The Morozov Design Bureau in Ukraine created the more conventional 6TD 1,000 hp diesel engine for the T-80UD, and improved that to 1,250 in the T-84 tanks. By adopting the T-90, the Russians have abandoned further production of more gas turbines, but are catching up in diesel performance at ChTZ, replacing that tank's 840 hp diesel engine with a 1,000 hp engine in the T-90S, and apparently have demonstrated a 1,200 hp version.[5]
There are also other newer tanks with comparable power-to-weight ratios (Leclerc, Type 99), both in the 55-tonne range with 1,500 hp power plants, and the M1 Abrams is up there, although it weighs well over 60 tonnes with the full modular armour package installed.
Please note that such statistics published anywhere are probably quoted from manufacturer's marketing materials. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 21:14 Z
modern tanks
Who's messing with the modern tanks thing at the bottom, why rearrange it? And if you feel like you need to please label your catigories accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Counterstrike69 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).