Talk:T-80

T-80 ammunition storage in article contradicts itself...

In this article it states that the ammo is storred in the most protected part of the tank so if a round enters all the ammunition cooks off killing the crew and popping the top off, unlike the m1, which stores its ammunition in a blast proof compartment. This does not make sense as that would not be the most protected part of the tank if such a hit could cause that kind of damage, unless the tank is relatively under armored... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.25.241 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction in the article regarding this issue. I would like you to think about it for a bit more, if you do not get it, write back, I will try to clarify.99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

T-80 is not derived from the T-72

The question of why Western analysts might be confused about why the Russians 'chose to assign it a different model designation' is a bizarre one. It seems to be rooted in a poor understanding of Russian tanks and their histories. The T-80 and T-72 are mechanically very different tanks, in a lot of ways; they are also designed from square one by completely different design bureaus (Morozov as opposed to Nizhny Tagil) and really are only similar in general appearance. The T-80 is based on the T-64, which was a competing design at the time the T-72 was produced. The T-64 was Morozov's offering, and was initially intended to be Russia's primary MBT, while the T-72 was intended to be mainly produced for export partners and east-bloc satellite states. The T-72 is mechanically simpler and easier to service in the field, while it is not as well protected, and the manufacturing process is correspondingly simpler.

This was enough of an advantage in the long term that the tank most produced was the T-72; obviously it better fit the Soviet ideal of quantity over quality; while the T-64 was the superior tank, it was more expensive, and as such was not produced as much, and was never exported.

The T-64's story continues in the T-80. Morozov extrapolated on the design, including a 1500hp gas turbine engine. This gave the tank a stunning power-to-weight ratio and made it easily the most mobile tank in the world (where it remains today, according to most experts). This is because while there other tanks which boast similar power (the M1 series has a 1500hp gas turbine as well, where it weigs in at 70 tons), the Russian tanks are almost half the size and weight (hence the similarity in their looks; it's the low profile and the national tank design ethic, pan shaped turrets, sharp hull fronts and low profiles).

The T-80's main disadvantages are common to all Russian tanks, and as such, it might be said the Russians are 'desperate' to find export partners for it. . . which isn't true; the Ukranians are, and they have been moderately successful, while the Russians are 'desperate' to sell the T-90, at which they have also been successful.

These disadvantages are in the small size of the tank (about 1/2 to 3/4 that of the M1, depending on the aspect). the crew quarters are cramped and difficult to work in. The ammunition is stored (except in more modern versions like Oplot and Black Eagle) below the crew inside the crew compartment in the autoloader carousel, which means that when the tank is penetrated, the ammo cooks off, killing the crew and blowing the turret into the air. Due to the small turret, it is impossible to de-elevate the gun more than a few degrees when the tank is in defilade, and so the tank has a hard time firing from hull-down positions, though in newer versions like Oplot and Black Eagle, this is mitigated as well with entirely new turrets.

These disadvantages are endemic to Russian tank design, nearly all Russian tanks have them, wich is to say that the only additional disadvantage to the T-80 series might be its mechanical complexity, but of course, while that was an issue in the days of the T-64's usurpation by the T-72, it is less so today, except as concerns potential third-world export partners (most of whom cannot afford T-80s anyway; and in any case, the most recent (and even more expensive) prototypes have solved all of these problems and in many ways are similar to current Western offerings, excepting that they are considerably smaller.

Small size is also an advantage, since you can manufacture more tanks and a tank is harder to hit. as in every issue, there are trade offs, please do not forget to mention them when you are talking about some property of a tank.99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Should be Soviet, not Russian

"russian" is quiet wrong. it should be "soviet" --zeno 23:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Not comparable to Western offerings?

In what way are the T-84U or T-84-120 not comparable to the newest Western offerings? They seem to be at least in the same category, if not in some ways superior, in terms of firepower, mobility, protection, and technology. —Michael Z. 15:50, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

They lack fire control systems, armour, and battlefield information systems of a comparable standard. Dan100 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fire control and information systems aren't really a limiting factor of a tank's design; Ukrainian tanks are being fitted with French fire control systems, and upgrades are always possible, although most tanks in service probably don't have the same standard of electronics equipment as many western countries. Russia has produced some battlefield countermeasures systems that the west doesn't have.

It's difficult to find factual material about armour, but I don't think I've read anywhere that the T-80's armour is inferior. Do you know of any good sources?

—Michael Z. 21:08, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

OK, after having a good read I'd agree that their armour is quite probably comparable. As you say some T-80s have comparable firecontrol systems (but do any have BDIS as in the latest M1s?). I'd contend these systems are critical; you can have the best gun in the world but it doesn't mean squat if you can't hit the enemy, but he can hit you.

However I don't think the line "Current versions of the T-80 are comparable to the newest Western offerings" - which is inherently POV without an objective source - needs be in the article. Nowhere in the M1 or Challenger articles does it say they are superior to the T-80. Nor does the T-80 article imply inferiority. Yes it has disadvantages, but all tanks do. The Challenger is under-powered, the M1 is excessively heavy (witness the bridge collapse in Iraq). Both are so large that they are hard to operate in urban areas. Dan100 11:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

True. It may be valuable to cite real performance comparisons in battle or in competitions for any tanks, but this kind of information is hard to come by.

There's some discussion here and in T-72 that could be rewritten a bit and become a good article on Soviet main battle tank design. There's a strong theme starting with the BT tanks and T-34 that carries through to the latest. Comparisons with western tanks will be inevitable. —Michael Z. 22:03, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

I think that would make a good article, go for it! It would be interesting to explore the different tactical philosophies that led to the Soviets making the design choices (compared to the West) they did, too. I seem to remember something about Soviet tanks being more likely to be used offensively so are more mobile by having a lower weight, but sacrifice armour to achieve that. Of course, being more mobile, they're then harder to hit in the first place. Dan100 00:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, that line was in this article originally becuase this is an expansion on and response to a poorly researched and *heavily* POV version of the article which did little but describe the T-80 as something of a failure (which it most certainly is not).

I don't believe that line is necessary, but I also don't believe the current versions of the T-80U and T-84 (especially the 120 versions) lack comparable technology. In many ways their technology is superior. The Russians and Ukranians are certainly leagues ahead in therms of active protection systems, like Shtora, Arena, and Drozd. I would, however, be inclined to think that a line like that might dissuade the less knowledgeable Western readers from assuming its inferiority (as they more-often-than-not tend to do). It may well be POV, but I believe it is true.

I think there's also the question of what they are designed to do. I believe the M1 is designed almost exclusively as an anti-armour system (witness the systems the M60 tank had which made it a good platform to integrate with infantry that the M1 lacks such as the external telephone(s), also the fact that the M1 is rather dangerous to be standing near). I don't think M1s usually carry many non-AP rounds. Compare this to Soviet/Russian tanks which are heavily into counter-infantry - they typically carry a lot more anti-personnel rounds (I think more than half their standard loads), and I think this is one of the reasons they didn't have the sophisticated fire control systems of some other tanks. ERA is also especially useful against infantry-type weapons - I don't think they'll do much against a sabot round. They do have some interesting anti-armour capabilities such as the emphasis on being able to fire anti-tank missiles (once again, something the M551 and M60A2 had which the M1 doesn't). I'd say these reasons have a lot to do with the differences between Soviet and Western tanks, and the advantages/disadvantages of both. I'd agree that the T80 is in the same league as the M1, Challenger, Leopard 2, etc. It's a little different than those but still has a lot in common. And yes I do think there is a quantity vs. quality factor involved as well. Nvinen 12:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any specific sources to back this opinion up, but I think this kind of difference was more pronounced during the Cold War than it is now. The Soviet mechanized strategy was based on their WWII experience and their production economy, technology, and level of troop training, and the presumed offensive nature of a theoretical conflict in Europe (regardless of who would start it, the USSR would win it by overrunning Europe quickly, Blitzkrieg-style). To sum it up: lots of highly mobile tanks used in the assault, using company fire and offensive smoke projectors, followed up closely by mechanized infantry. Able to exploit openings created by NBC weapons. Entire regiment-sized units are expendable; they potentially waste themselves breaking through any concerted defences so successive units can keep advancing, and their remaining assets are pulled back to equip newly formed units.

Now that Russia and Ukraine are both trying to sell tanks on the open market, and have a high level of technology, this difference from western tank tactics is less important, although their heritage is still evident. Do we really know how much AP and HE they carry today? They are equipping their tanks with the latest fire-control systems and 120 mm guns to try to compete with NATO products. Granted, a T-84 is probably in a market niche that's much cheaper than an M-1 or Leopard-2, but it wants to be considered a valid replacement for it. Heck, the T-84 even has air conditioning for the crew!

Note that the latest Kontakt-5 ERA and Arena (active countermeasures system) are reputed to have some effect against KE penetrators. —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 16:00 Z

I was just pointing out the heritage, not the current configuration. I'm sure the AP/HE load is up to the customer, but the fact that the emphasis was originally on HE suggests that the tank design was originally more heavily biased toward anti-infantry roles than the current western tanks are. That isn't to say they can't or didn't adapt them well to the anti-armour role, or that they're bad at it. The small size certainly helps, they're harder to hit. In the past, T-72/T-80 class tanks, however, haven't shown very good survivability if and when they are hit, but for all I know that's changed dramatically since they sold their tanks to countries like Iraq, who probably don't know how to use them anyway.

My personal opinion is that the USSR bankrupted themselves building weapons, which suggests that they have lots of good weapons technology to sell. They certainly make good SAMs and jet aircraft and I've no doubt they have performed similar miracles with their tanks that they have with those (look at how much more advanced the new export MiG-29s and Su-27/30/33s are than the originals, or how much they've upgraded the SA-10 over the last 20 years). Like I said I think they're competative with current western designs, but optimised for different roles. However I think almost anyone could make good use of suitable equipped Russian tanks. Basically if you pay the Russians enough (and you get a really good deal for what you do pay), they'll make you some world-class weapons, the results of their fundamentally good cold-war designs and modern technology.

Interesting that you say ERA is useful against KE penetrators. I wonder how much. I'll read up on it. Also, I'm not aware of a T-84, I take it it's related to a T-80? What about the T-90 and its successors?

Hmm, after re-reading what you said, it seems we agree to a large extent.

Nvinen 16:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yup—we should start a club.

The T-84 is the latest Ukrainian development of T-80 and T-64 (while the T-90 is an advanced T-72 with some T-80 features). A main design objective was to make Ukraine's arms industry independent of Russia's, after resulting difficulties in fulfilling the Pakistan contract for T-80s. The T-84's outstanding feature is the 26 or 27 hp/t power to weight ratio, compared to T-90's 18 to 20 hp/t. They are also supposed to perform well in hot climates (hence the air conditioning).

I think the latest versions of all of these tanks have tried to improve crew survivability by incorporating blow-out ammunition compartments, à la M1, but I can't remember if that feature is in production. I have no idea how effective ERA is against KE, just repeating what I've read. —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 17:25 Z

I'm reading about it now, from what I can tell the Kontakt-5 is quite effective against penetrating rods to the extent that I think it would likely increase the average number of hits the equipped tanks could take from a NATO AP round from 1 up to maybe 2 or 3. That's a significant improvement and well worth it, but I don't think it's going to win the battle for you.

Really, I'm not sure what role tanks are going to play in the future. I doubt there will be many tank vs. tank battles. The best features of a modern tank are those which help integrate it with the rest of your force - sensors, communications, etc. For example, I hear that we (Australia) are buying some new tanks. My immediate reaction is: "why?". What are we going to do with them? Anybody who's going to be facing them will have to cross some fairly large stretches of water and then desert. Hell, they're going to face bigger problems with logistics than we can make for them with a handful of tanks. I'd spend the money on better air-to-surface missiles for long-range aircraft personally :)

I think what I'm really saying is that pretty much any modern tank will do the job, T-84 included, as long as it's suitably well integrated into your armed forces. I'd be happy with a statement in the article mentioning that the T-80/84 are marketed competatively with Abrahms, Leopard 2, etc.—I'm pretty sure that's entirely true but you'd have to check around a bit. Nvinen 17:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting:

"Prior to Kontakt-5, Russian ERA was effectively useless against KE long rods; Kontakt-5 was an attempt to balance the effects to defeat both threats."

"Perversely, this seems to work best with a narrow range of penetrator shapes/sizes, and both shorter/wider and longer/narrower darts seem to work better against ERA. The A1, A2, and E3 versions of the M829 120mm KE projectile played with projectile dimentions to try and defeat Kontakt-5 (among other changes), though the details are somewhat classified."

This makes a somewhat interesting read

Nvinen 17:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Big problem regarding T-80s though... In an Abrams or Challenger II, the ammo is stored in specialized compartments, so that if it blows, it blows up and away from the tank. In the Merkava, the ammo is stored in fireproof containers. However, in a T-80, the ammo is stored in the hull, so a hit is more likely to be fatal (cook-off effects).

he Ukrainian T-84-120 and possibly the Russian Black eagle tank, both prototypes meant for the export market, incorporate a turret bustle with separate blow-out ammunition compartment. I don't know if any production models do, though. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 01:37 Z The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot in service on a small scale, as well as the Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan and Russian Black eagle tank prototypes incorporate a turret bustle with separate blow-out ammunition compartment.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 16:27 Z

I think it is likely that the fire control systems, as well as the T-80's main gun, are somewhat behind the times. I don't have specific information on the fire control, but the gun is a further development of the gun that the T-80 came to the market with five years before the M1A1 debuted. As such, I don't think the T-80 is an obsolete design. It was very modern when it was introduced, and it probably never was produced to fight a Western tank 1-on-1. However, the poor financial situation in Russia means that it has not received upgrades to the same standard as Western tanks. The M1A1-M1A2 has had its main gun replaced with something better, it's had a complete armor upgrade, and it's had its electronics worked over numerous times. We know the Russians haven't introduced a radically new gun. They have upgraded their ERA armor which may be quite effective, but as far as I know ERA hasn't been tested under combat conditions. So, the T-80 would probably be a formidable opponent with a few upgrade packages a-la the M1A2 or the Leopard2. The Ukrainian T-84 for Turkey mounts a new 120mm, so that might be the kind of change that would make it really competitive. The feature that all tanks of the T-80 and T-90 variety share, the capability to fire ATGMs from the main barrel, is one thing that is seldom mentioned in comparisons. The ATGMs have a range of 5km max and it'd be wise to assume they can do serious damage. 203.45.85.74 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Max

Armor

Feel free to dispute my statements. I am by no means an expert, but have read extensively on the subject.

Kontakt-5 had stopped an US sabbot round, but note the round defeated was an M289, not M289A1, A2, or A3, all of them designed for heavier firepower against Kontakt/projected future Russian explosive reactive armor, and A3 is speculated to be able to penetrate approximately 1000mm RHAe (Rolled Homogenous Armor Equivalent)in 1km, which is enough to kill any modern tank at that distance.

The M1 Abrams' armor, in its modern configurations (A2 and SEP), is regraded to be superior to current generation of Russian tanks by a wide margin by the experts to whose opinion I have access to. Paul Lakowski (an naval armor engineer and tank sim designer) and a former US Army Master Gunnery Sergeant (11 Cav, gunner and commander) I had the pleasure to converse with both concurred with that opinion. The former's knowledge is purely speculative, but the later had access to classified information. It is based on these information that I deem M1 series superior in quality to Russian tanks.

New information: Comparing the estimations of Vasiliy Fofanov (a Russian expert) to Lakowski's, the most advanced Russian armor are about 100mm RHA behind the western stuff. Not a wide margin, but a significant one.

-Jonathan Chin

Strange how people can look at the same thing and see quite different things :o). This is what I would say about it:

1. All penetrators have their performance reduced to a lesser or greater degree by Kontakt-5; the difference is, obviously, quite relative.
2. A thousand millimetres of RHAE is not enough to consistently defeat the frontal armour of the M1, Leopard 2A5/6 or Challenger 2 in their heavy configuration, unless you are satisfied with a consistency of 0.5% per hit.
3. That 100 mm gap is between a Russian tank with Kontakt-5 and a M1 from 2003 without any ERA. That doesn't show the extent of the technology gap; it merely shows the M1 doesn't need ERA :o).
4. Apart from the quality, look at the relative quantity of the armour component of total weight.

--MWAK 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Western tank turrets often have a boxy angle shape which is not as strong as a dome,the Russian turrets are stronger because of being a dome,so the turret armour atlest doesnt have to be as thick. Dudtz1/10/06 7:16 PM EST

In itself it's true that, all other things being equal, a turret without welds is stronger than a turret with. Weld rims are about 20% weaker. The overall difference is very minor though and more than offset by the fact cast steel is softer than rolled or forged steel; also quality control with cast turrets is notoriously difficult. Cast turrets can be optimised in shape to maximise deflection; but the T-62 was the last Soviet tank to be designed thus. However the filled-in turrets of the later tanks were cheap to produce and had low maintenance costs compared to western designs — the quality problems only worsened though.--MWAK 07:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the T-72, T-64, and T-80 all had cast turrets, with composite armour incorporated into certain version (I don't know if it is inside, outside or sandwiched in the turret casting). Some of the last Ukrainian T-80UDs sent to Pakistan, the T-84 and T-84-120, and I think the Russian T-90 were the first Soviet-legacy tanks to have welded turrets.

Purely speculation, but I think the additional weakness of weld joints is probably insignificant compared to the additional protection of the composite armour of modern tanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-08 18:48 Z

This is certainly true. The welded turret sections of western tanks are basically containers to hold the modules, so the weaknesses are negligible. On the other hand the modules themselves may have welds, although good CMC's shouldn't have welded matrices. To avoid a possible misunderstanding: I wasn't claiming the T-62 was the last Soviet tank with a cast turret, but the last tank with a cast turret optimised for deflection :o)--MWAK 10:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What does "CMC" stand for? —Michael Z. 2006-02-09 15:13 Z

Ceramic Matrix Composite: a (sometimes hexagon honeycomb) matrix with the ceramic tiles inserted. If the matrix is made of a metal (there are also ceramic matrices) it should preferably be of one piece with the holes cut out. It's bad enough multiple hits will crack the tiles themselves; a welded matrix might shatter in its entirety — also a very good reason, in my opinion, not to use ceramic matrices for heavy armour :o). The Soviet system had a better multiple hit "capability", obviously having a better plasticity.

I'm not an expert in that field, but the shape of the turret is very important. It is known that a dome turret is more likely to deflects the shots. It's the same principle with sloped armor. The box turrets are less sloped so the shells are less likely to be deflected. Secondly, it is true that the soviet modern tanks have less passive armor than the western one. They have replaced it by active armor protection like ERA and missiles jamming systems. There are two reasons to explain this. First, after the Yom Kippur war, the soviets analysed casualties for both sides. It resulted that 50% of the tanks were knocked out by anti-tank missiles and rockets, 25% by aircrafts attacks and 25% by tank firing. They concluded that the main adversary of the main battle tank is now the ATGM. Missiles use HEAT warhead and passive armor is not very efficient to stop them so they used ERA because it is probably the best way to be protected against those types of warhead. Beside of this, they developped the shtora system to jam the guided-missiles and the ARENA system to destroy them in flight and I have seen a very amazing video where you can see the ARENA in action and it's very efficient.

At the other side, the Western's designers think that the main enemy of the MBTs are other MBTs. So they continue to build tanks with heavy passive armor and little anti-missiles protections. Personnally, I think it's an error, but the western countries seem to be conservative on this subject.

Finally I would say that the newest T-84, T-90 and Black Eagle have the same capabilities than the western tanks. They have computarized fire control systems, great armor protection (around 1000mm with ERA), very good guns that are capable to launch ATGM from the barrel (which enable them to hit an enemy tank at a range of 5000m when a tank gun is not accurate beyond 1500-2000m (and this include the famous Abrams)) and have very advanced anti-missiles systems. They just have different doctrine of use and construction. Kovlovsky 20:01 30 april 2006

Actually, the M1 is able to hit tank sized targets beyond 3500 meters with APFSDS with 80%+ hit probability. However by then the penetration has diminished so greatly that flank and rear hits are they only way to take out a t-72/80/90. And from what ive seen the oficial penetration for the M289A3 is 920mm RHAe at point blank

I wonder how 3 M1 Abrams would do against three BMP-3s or 3 BTR-90s. Although the BMP-3 and the BTR-90 have thin armour compared to the abrams,their offensive capabilities are very good. Dudtz 9/12/06 9:33 PM EST

This whole discussion is like "would Batman beat Aquaman in a fight?", or "would brass knuckles beat a switchblade knife?". Military organizations fight each other in battle, that is, groups of trained soldiers, equipped with weapons and vehicles, in particular situations. Individual vehicles in isolation cannot be compared like rock-paper-scissors.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-13 16:21 Z

You don't think there could be a 3 on 3 fight? What if both groups of 3 were used to scout ahead,and they met eachother? Dudtz 6/17/06 8:03 PM EST

I'm saying that a thousand other factors affect a battle. Speculating about which vehicles would win is useless. Anyway, no offence, but let's work on the encyclopedia and conduct the fan-forum chat elsewhere.

The tanks would win.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-18 03:48 Z

You can talk about it on my talk page. Dudtz 9/19/06 6:11 PM EST

Inappropriate merger ?

This article seem to be inappropriately merged with the Magical girls article , I may be no expert but I fail to see the similarities. This article should be reverted back to it’s per merger froum.

T-80 as a "myth"

I remember reading several articles in the late 80's and early 90's wherein several Western "experts" on Soviet military technology said that the T-80 was a "myth," and the tank in question was nothing more than a T-72 with different armor. I specifically recall that comment from Popular Mechanics, but it seems to me that I read that in several other books and articles as well. Now, obviously these supposed experts have been proven wrong, please don't misunderstand, but does anyone else remember this? I find it interesting how well the Soviet Union managed to keep secrets, not just with this tank but in other areas, as well.--Raulpascal 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The T-72B was misidentified as "T-80" when it was first seen by the West, adding to the confusion. It's not necessarily that the experts were so stupid, it's just that they had to guess at the name when all they had was a picture. When it was realized that this was a T-72, a debate started about whether the "T-80" existed. The T-64 and T-80 were only issued to a few units, and not exported, so information about them was very hard to come by.

Popular sources weren't very good at interpreting such information, so confusing reports kept being published when the information was obsolete.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 16:22 Z

Change the photo!

The tank on photo on page is not a T-80BV - it`s not even T-80. Looks like it`s just a heavy camouflaged T-72. Note that this "T-80" stand in american museum.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vulkan Raven (talk • contribs) .

The tank in the lead photo has no exhaust on the left side, and its road wheels have the uneven spacing of a T-64 or T-80. It looks like it has had some non-standard fender repairs. But now that you mention it, I think the searchlight on the tank's left-hand side of the gun may indicate that it is a T-64—or is the photo reversed left-to-right?

The second photo definitely looks like a T-80 to me (same tank, compare, compare 3rd photo). No side exhaust, forward-facing machine gun, unevenly-spaced road wheels.

American museum: how is that relevant? —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 19:33 Z

After a closer look, I think the first photo is of a T-80, but flipped left-to-right. It appears that the commander's hatch is on the near side (tank's left), but all of the recent Soviet tanks have the hatch on the tank's right. —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 19:39 Z

Just look at real T-80BV:

File:T80BV 2.jpg

I think the tank on the lead photo is a fake but better than british one:

File:9e2ee5505c06f78ddcf9e39297a9346b.jpg

What makes you think the lead photo is fake?

What is the source of your second photo? Indeed, that one is weird. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 15:01 Z

Myth of poorly armoured soviet tanks

I think there is big myth about soviet tanks - everbody look on their weight, but don`t look on their crew number and compartment volume - if you compare, how many weight of armor it is necessary on each member of crew, will be found out that soviet tanks will win - they just do not present loader, his work is carried out with much more compact automatic loading device, and the loader borrows most of the crew compartment volume - that means that 46 tonn T-80U is better protected then 59 tonn M1A1HA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vulkan Raven (talk • contribs) .

I agree with you; the myth is promulgated by the crappy old T-72s that the Americans encountered in Iraq. But that just means that it is hard to compare a T-80 to an M1: they are definitely different, but what evidence is there that a T-80's armour is better than the M1's? —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 19:35 Z

Simply because of factor of weight of the reservation on each member of crew (notice - that "active" ERA has the best factor "weight-efficiency" than the passive armor). Could be that new M1A2 has a better armor then newest russian tanks - but look at his weight - more than 63 tonnes!

That is an advantage of reactive armour. It is not evidence that the T-80's overall protection is better, or worse, than the M1's. —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:33 Z

T-80UM2 and Black Eagle

The "Models" section states that the T-80UM2 and the "Black Eagle" are the same tank - This has to be a mistake.

I am almost certain the T-80UM2 is just an upgraded T-80 and retains a relatively similiar appearance, the Black Eagle article has a picture which looks almost nothing like the T-80. I think the mistake should be cleared up, but I don't want to do it myself because I am not sure what should actually be put there in the T-80UM2 section.

--CGBeebe 05:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Big mistake made by western journalists. The T-80UM2 is just the T-80UM with the Drozd-2 active protection system, and thus similar to T-80UM1 Bars. The Black Eagle never was "T-80", it was Obyekt 640.

That's a recent change, and Zaloga (2000) agrees with you. I'll restore it. (But the first Black Eagle shown was just a T-80 with a mock-up turret.)~~

Reactive armor can't be looked at the same way conventional armor is when it comes to the amount of protection provided.

T-80AT

Can someone cite a published source about the T-80AT, or even a news article? An anonymous posting in an online forum is not a sufficient reference, even though the poster sounds very knowledgeable. —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 17:10 Z

• Damn, on english - just some "anonymous posting in an online forum". On russian - here you go: BTVTnarod.ru

Doesn't meet verifiability guidelines, so I removed it. Although the forum links to some nice technical drawings, the source of the information is not cited anywhere. —Michael Z. 2007-03-09 20:19 Z

Most mobile tank

This gave the tank a high power-to-weight ratio and made it easily the most mobile tank in the world, albeit with acute range problems, since the turbine consumes fuel very rapidly, even when the engine idles.

I'm restoring this removed sentence, with the added qualifier "in service". Although BT tanks had a good highway speed in wheeled mode, they weren't as mobile as a modern main battle tank. And they haven't been in service for 60 years or so. I can't find any references for HIMAG, but I don't think that it is a tank currently in service. —Michael Z. 2007-03-09 20:22 Z

The High Mobility Agility(HiMAg) was an experimental tank from USA,with road speeds in the 50 some mph range,it had a 75mm Ares auto cannon. --Dudtz 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

T-80 or T-90

Are the later T-80s such as the T-80UM1 superior to the T-90 tanks? A guy I talked to recently insisted that the T-90s were cheap poor designs compared to the newer T-80s.

I have also heard from other sources that the T-90 (based off of the T-72) is or was planned to be deployed in a similar manner to the T-72. This means the T-90 would make up most armored units and be exported while the latest T-80s would be reserved for elite units. Does anyone know if this is true? --68.118.179.186 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The T-90 is an advanced T-72: it is the lower-technology tank, and I've read somewhere that some in the Russian army were disappointed that the T-80 was not chosen. Whether it is really inferior is hard to say, because great things have been done with low-technology tanks (e.g., the T-34).

I'm not sure how the T-80 is deployed nowadays. It is considered the superior vehicle, but these tanks are aging while brand new T-90 tanks are being put into service. —Michael Z. 2007-06-20 05:23 Z

Exported to South Korea?

I don't know if this is true. I would have thought that the tank would have been exported to North Korea. Can anyone clear this up for me? --Wil101 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While there were some reports North Korea but a few modern tanks from Russia I don't know if those were T-90s. --68.118.179.186 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

South Korea "bought" 80 T-80Us in exchange for nullification of Russian debts to South Korea made during the existence of USSR.

North Korea bought 1 T-90S for study to upgrade their M-2002 tank. - SuperTank17 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

T-80 (Ob.219sp2) with Kobra ???

The text mentions that the early T-80 is capable of launching the "Kobra" missile but this is not correct, according to several Russian sources. Simply put: the T-80 (Ob.219sp2) had the turret of the T-64A and the T-80B (Ob.219R) had the turret of the T-64B, so only the B model is fitted with the 9K112 system. However, some early T-80's were later upgraded to more or less B standard. dendirrek (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Technical Data are Wrong

The table in this article saying T-80 weighs 46tonne and T-80B weighs 49tonne et c. are quite wrong. They do have reference about those claims, but the guy who wrote them just simply confused between "tonne"(metric ton; 1,000 kilograms) and "(short) ton"(2,000 pounds). Among the weight values, some are in "short ton" and others are in "tonne", but all are mentioned to be "tonne". The right values are : T-80(42 tonne), T-80B(42.5 tonne), T-80U(46 tonne), T-80UD(46 tonne). (reference : Mikhail Baryatinskiy, "Main Battle Tank T-80", Ian Allan Publishing, ISBN(10) 0-7110-3238-6) Consequently, some "Power-to-weight ratio" values are also incorrect.

I tried to correct them, but server was on maintenance and DB was locked. If there's someone able to edit them, please do so. Shaind (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Under Combat history, the 2008 South Ossetia War was added again, with the edit summary So according to you Russian Armed Forces have only 641,000 troops under their command? It's funny because the last time I checked Russian Armed Forces had 3,796,100 troops under thier command.

Criminy! Will you please read your own sources carefully?

The article 2008 South Ossetia War says that Russian is estimated to have about 15,000 regulars in Georgia. The Jane's source cited includes a “capability assessment” of Georgia and Russia, and says not one word about which model tanks are fielded in Georgia.

The Russian ground forces have an estimated 395,000 personnel total. —Michael Z. 2008-08-18 20:30 z

If the said source is not about forces fielded in Georgia than how do you explain the personnel amount of 641,000? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it includes the Air Force. What does it matter? The page says nothing about which tanks are fielded in Georgia. —Michael Z. 2008-08-19 17:09 z

Putting that aside for a moment another thing that makes me believe this Jane's article is about forces used in Georgia is the amount of tanks: 6,717. According to the Russian Ground Forces article there are more than 22,800 tanks being operated by Russian Army. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that South Ossetia's population has increased ten-fold due to the influx of Russian soldiers? Nor that one third of all tanks in the Russian arsenal from Moscow to the Bering Sea, including reserves and war stores, has driven into South Ossetia over the course of a week, to conduct an invasion with twice as many tanks as the Germans used in Operation Barbarossa? That many tanks driving line-abreast wouldn't fit across the South Ossetian frontier with Russia.

Those are just reality checks. The essential fact is that the Jane's PR labels the list a “capability assessment” for Russia, nothing more. —Michael Z. 2008-08-19 17:52 z

Adequate citations

There are about 50 citations of "Czołgi Świata" (World's Tanks or Tanks Of The World) magazine issue 8. Please cite this in detail, per Wikipedia:CITE#Putting together the citation. Specifically:

Full citations for journal articles typically include:

• the name of the author or authors
• year and sometimes month of publication
• the title of the article
• the name of the journal
• volume number, issue number (if the journal uses them), and page numbers

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-18 21:09 z

I going to covert all those citations tomorrow. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the additions for “Kolekcja Czołgi Świata”. They should include the author's name, and if they are referring to magazine articles, then they should include the article titles. If these are not an Internet reference, then it's probably not necessary to link to the publisher's catalogue page and certainly not to provide the date accessed. —Michael Z. 2008-08-19 17:59 z

Authors are not listed either in the magazine or on the website. I included the website as a proof for the existence of the magazine. There is no article specified because the entire issue is about one specific subject, in this case T-80 MBT and everything related to it. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a souvenir magazine sold with the model, and not a good quality verifiable source. Facts stated in this article shouldn't solely on this source. —Michael Z. 2008-08-19 20:05 z

It's not "a souvenir magazine" as you called it. Those magazines contain detailed information which you won't find on many websites on the subject. Each issue is checked by experts on military technology. Also if I find any additional sources I will add them, of course. So I don't know why you see this information as untrue. If someone wanted to make a brochure with without caring what it said he or she would just copy a few things of Wikipedia and some other websites, rewrite it a little and make it on a single piece of paper. Keep in mind that somebody had to care about describing the tank in such detail. As an example I can say that many facts that I have learned about the subject over the years from various sources can be found in those magazines. The information is reliable in my opinion. You question those magazines yet you haven't read them in which case how can you possibly judge their quality? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they are checked by military experts? Which experts are listed in the publications?

I do not see this information as untrue. However, is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It doesn't believe everything it reads, and it doesn't care how much you or I likes a particular source. Wikipedia's official policy requires verifiable and reliable sources.

Lacking any information about authorship, and presumably lacking any references, these do not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements. So we should try to find sources which do.

The specific claim that Syria operates T-80 tanks is not supported by any acceptable source. There are a few news items saying that there was a deal in place, but not even rumour supporting actual deliveries. —Michael Z. 2008-08-20 00:07 z

"How do you know they are checked by military experts?" It's written on the other side of the front cover where they also list things like ISBN code number, publisher etc.

I'm not saying that I like the source. I just say that from my viewpoint, an always ready to learn military theorist, the source is reliable. And I'm sorry but you make it seem as if a book is always bound to be more reliable than a magazine. Well guess what, a book can be just as unreliable as anything else. When I'm buying a magazine or a book, I don't look at the authors unless I need to. For me what matters is what the source contains and NOT who wrote it. No one is flawless and no one can be always right. Because of that I tend to judge a book or a magazine by what it contains and not by who wrote it. Because judging those things by their authors is literally judging them by their cover.

But I have contacted the publisher about the authors and maybe they will help to settle this dispute once and for all.

Also about Syria: I added an additional English source.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that the military experts are also anonymous. I'm sorry but neither the Czołgi Świata books, nor the anonymously-run Military Today website, meet Wikipedia's policies for verifiable sources. —Michael Z. 2008-08-20 18:51 z

Can you tell me how many verifiable sources you will find about any given topic? The answer is not much because Wikipedia policies are so narrow it's impossible for 90% of the sources to be verifiable. I'm just suggesting to use commonsense nowadays. If you want to censor everything through Wikipedia policies on verifiable sources than you will be forced to remove more than 50% of content on the website (most of which is true if judged by using commonsense). Think realistically about it. There's no such thing as a perfect source. There will always be "buts" and uncertainties. The only thing we can do to keep this thing at a realistic level and not go insane is if we don't narrow our verifiability policies. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your view is that since official policy is inadequate, in certain cases we should disregard it and do what actually works in the real world. —Michael Z. 2008-08-20 20:55 z

Yes. You can't use a policy to judge everything because no policy will ever be perfect and there will always be cases when a policy doesn't go along with the truth. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is not a guideline, but one of the basic policies of Wikipedia—without it, Wikipedia could never have become a respected source. Editors should follow policies unless they have outstanding justification and consensus supporting their actions.

When you add volumes of unverifiable information to articles, you are making them permanently START-class on the assessment scale, unless a lot of work is done weeding out the unacceptable “references”. Be warned that unreferenced information may be removed. I've invested work to bring this article and some others on the path towards B-class, and I will continue pushing them in that direction. —Michael Z. 2008-08-22 18:10 z

I'm not saying you shouldn't. However please think before removing something. If you'll remove things simple because they don't exactly match with the policies than you're acting like a mindless machine. We're humans and we have that unique ability to see that sometimes something makes sense though it may not exactly follow the policies. Tell which parts of the article you find questionable and let me help you in deciding whether they can be true or not. And please drop that hostile tone. I'm simply asking for some commonsense. That's all.

Also I'll try to contact the authors soon. There's a chance of getting this information and finally ending this dispute. Regards.- SuperTank17 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be considerate in my edits. But certain tank articles' quality assessments have been tanking lately,[1][2][3] and it's time to start working on meeting Wikipedia's goals.

Specific to this article, I think it will remain weak until we remove all dependencies on sources which don't meet WP:V. —Michael Z. 2008-08-22 19:04 z

I said it again and I'll say it again: Think before deleting. I encourage you to discuss issues you're having with the content of this article. I think that us and some other editors might just work something out. Right now you're pretty much standing there with that axe about to cut down all that content. That is not a way to go at a community created website.

BTW I would like to point out that the article was classified as Start article before I added that new content. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Found another tank article assessment going downhill.[4] Notice that in most of these, it is the referencing and citations criterion which keep it below B-class (to see the B-class criteria checklist, show the add'l info in the Milhist box at the top of the article's talk).

You have brought a lot of good information to these articles. I would ask that you spend more time citing the reliable sources at your command, and don't put so much energy into gleaning every last fact from sources that aren't useful to Wikipedia. A properly-referenced GA-class or A-class article which has good basic information is far more useful than a lengthy dissertation which remains START-class because it is peppered with details which cannot be confirmed or denied. —Michael Z. 2008-08-22 22:13 z

Maybe but is it really so bad leaving things which can be accepted after thinking straight about them? I encourage you to wait with the execution. I'll try to phone the authors on Monday. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Invalid ISBN

By the way, the ISBN provided for Czołgi Świata appears to be incorrect. It doesn't show up at any of the Book Sources I checked, and there is no record of it at the National Library of Poland. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:53 z

As far as I know there is no National Library of Poland, there's only a National Library in Warsaw and it, as far as I know, doesn't have everything.

Also here's the ISBN number as well as the publishers and redaction: [5]

Reference problems

This article has over five dozen non-English language footnotes. At least some of them are obviously replaceable with English-language sources, as required by WP:NONENG. If the foreign-language source is important enough to any of these to keep them, then the relevant passage should be translated in a footnote so it can be checked, and to help other editors find an English-language replacement.

This article also has a number of self-published and anonymous sites used as “references”. These are not acceptable, per WP:SPS.

These problems should be reduced so this article can regain its B-class status, and they must be dealt with before it can be regarded as a good article (GA-class). —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 05:42 z

What I have done IS translated the text from those sources. I can provide you with quotes in Polish. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotations, whether translated or not, must be attributed and indicated with quotation marks. Entering such quotations into article text could be copyright infringement. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 17:07 z

Dubious

Some questionable claims lack verifiable references. I will delete these shortly. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 06:49 z

Half the claims made on this page read like USSR propaganda. Maybe it wouldn't sound so biased if every statistic wasn't followed by how it compares to western tanks, especially since almost every single comparison favors the Russian tank. How does that even make sense? Somehow America has sunk trillions in defense spending and ended up with an inferior tank that also costs way more per unit? Keytud (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan T-84

I find dubious the claim that 285 T-84s were shipped to Pakistan. English-language sources, including the two English-language footnotes for this claim and Zaloga 2000 cited here, say that the T-80UD order was finished by substituting Ukrainian made welded turrets for Russian-made cast turrets, but that the tanks shipped to Pakistan were called “T-80UD”, and lacked the T-84's power plant and other improvements. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 06:10 z

So they were just T-80UD with a turret from T-84? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: A source which mentions Pakistan buying T-84 MBTs: [6]

UPDATE: [7] According to Global Security the 285 tanks delivered by Ukraine shared more elements with the T-84 than only the turret. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another source saying that Ukraine exported T-84 MBTs to Pakistan: [8]

UPDATE: Yet another source mentioning Pakistani T-84 MBTs: [9]

Your globalsecurity.org calls these tanks T-80UD. So does Steven Zaloga (2000, cited in the article). So did the President of Pakistan.[10][11] So does the Ukrainian manufacturer of the tanks.[12]

Indeed, they were T-80UD tanks with the welded turret also used for the T-84, plus some other manufacturing differences not important enough for any source to mention.

And please, please start paying some attention to WP:V. Citing more anonymous websites doesn't advance any argument. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 17:30 z

When I read about something, regardless whether of the source being "verifiable" or not, I consider things that I read about a fact unless I have better sources on the subject that say otherwise.

You win this time however I would like to point out that Enemy Forces is a very good website and you shouldn't dismiss it like that. You probably didn't even looked at the content. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources like that may be very readable and useful for general information.

They are not useful—not one bit—for Wikipedia's basic principal of verifiability. Think of it as a legal principal. For Wikipedia to have any respectability at all, everything here must be independently verifiable. We cannot include a fact just because you or I believe it is true. Statement number one with bold letters is “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”.

It doesn't matter how thoughtful you are about something—Wikipedia and the requirement for consensus do not allow you to appoint yourself final arbiter for including unverifiable information. Seriously, man, it's time for you to understand and act on the way Wikipedia deals with this. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 20:03 z

What you presented me with here is a great foundation for a world's demise. The sheer thought "verifiability, not truth" does a great deal of damage to the advancement of mankind throughout the ages. Do you listen to yourself? What that means is that you'll be standing in front of something and won't be able to write about it on Wikipedia about because of lack of "verifiable" sources. Do you get it? That means that Wikipedia won't be the place for truth, the highest possible value in the world but rather a place for some "verifiable" authors to subject millions of people to their own, sometimes false, vision of the world. Right now you have destroyed almost every last bit of hope in me that Wikipedia would ever become a place to which you could go in order to receive true and updated information. Was that not the primary goal of Wikpedia? To bring free and true information for everybody with an Internet connection? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not write that. It's a direct quote of the leading line of one of Wikipedia's basic policies, which you have just thoroughly condemned. I'll stop pestering you about this now.

I honestly don't understand why you're expending so much energy on a project whose basic principle you abhor. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 20:49 z

As I said I was not aware that Wikipedia's basic principle is to ignore truth in favor of creating a largely popular hub for "verifiable" authors to subject millions of people to their own, sometimes false, vision of the world. I will however continue to defend truth on Wikipedia. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this claim. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:58 z

Syria

I'd like to see verifiable sources supporting T-80 deliveries to Syria. All that seems to exist are news reports of a major arms deal being made.

The two footnotes cite an anonymous foreign-language magazine, and an anonymous self-published website. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 06:13 z

Please answer two questions of mine: Do you expect Syria to go all "Oh look at us! We bought ourselfs T-80 MBTs!"? And do you expect Russia to go all "Look at us! We sold our T-80 MBTs to Syria who will surly use them in another war against Israel"? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V#Burden of evidence: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. . . . ” Please read the rest, too. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 18:19 z

You didn't answer my questions. I simply want to know if you think Syria and Russia would be all upfront about this. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the topic? —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 19:04 z

Your problem here is the fact that neither Syria or Russia officially confirmed the transaction. But those are politics. Wikipedia is not a place for "political correctness". Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No. My problem is that we can't publish unverified rumours as facts. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 20:37 z

Explain what do you exactly mean by "unverified" in this case. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 20:52 z

You did not understand me. I meant in THIS CASE. There's no need for you to post the same link again. Explain what is wrong with the sources that I have presented here about the subject discussed in this subsection. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable. “an anonymous foreign-language magazine, and an anonymous self-published website,” and neither appears to cite any sources.—which part needs clarification? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 05:07 z

I've removed this claim. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:59 z

So that means that if I present you with the names of the authors of the magazine or at least the name of their redaction than you'll stop having problem with that source? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, since you persistently refuse to provide translations which meet the basic requirements of WP:NONENG and WP:QUOTE. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 15:31 z

Hey! I didn't have time to do that since you asked me to. So can please calm down? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I informed you of the requirement for List of main battle tanks by generation in July, and that article remains with a single quoted block of text and no proper indication of where that block came from. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 16:20 z

That block as I informed you contained all the explanation for the way the tanks were broken up into three generations on Pancerni websites. Also in this case I meant this article and this talk page. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

“In spite of the fact that T-80 is much lighter than most modern western tanks, such as Abrams or Leopard 2, it has similar level of protection”—I believe the protection levels of both of these tanks are secret. This is uncited. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 06:49 z

I've removed this comparison. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 07:00 z

I have the patent for K-5 ERA, but I need to get it translated. This would be a good resource. I have an article published in MilTech that describes the T-80s armor, but when I asked on Tank-Net how trustworthy that was the Russians said that it wasn't (there is bias somewhere, in either source). JonCatalán (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

“Desert Eagle”

Who uses this name for the 7-axle Black Eagle? I can only find this on the anonymously-created JED site. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:03 z

I've removed this. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 07:02 z

Ladoga

Also only visible in the JED site. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:12 z

[sarcasm mode on]Well I don't know we have an English source, we have three pictures. But it still isn't true.[sarcasm mode off] Please explain this because I fail to see the problem here. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously I had only found the name mentioned on the cited page, and clicked through to another mention. Should have clicked that one too. I'll remove the “dubious” tag. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 18:13 z

Additional 250 T-84s ordered by Pakistan

“After Pakistan received this last shipment it has ordered another batch of 250 T-84 MBTs”—I don't see this mentioned in any verifiable source. Removing. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:45 z

[13]. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a self-published sole source for this fact, with no supporting references. It is doubtful, since Pakistan is invested in building Al Khalid tanks and has never publicly mentioned buying more T-80s or T-84s. The WP:BURDEN is on you to find an attributable source. Please don't restore it again until you do. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 15:52 z

What is it with you and T-84? I clearly written in the article T-80UD. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan has no plans to buy T-80UDs. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 16:04 z

I didn't knew you were the Pakistani minister of defense.

PS What do you mean by "Please don't restore it again until you do"? Considering the construction of space-time continuum it's not possible for me to restore it until I do. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Armour

“composite armour
It can withstand 120 mm rounds (triple layer)”—the reference provided is a hobby site.[14] This kind of data is secret, and shouldn't be copied unless it is from proper reference. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 16:50 z

What's meant by "triple layer"? I think they're referring to a triple layer NATO target, and that explains a lot - it doesn't mean that the tank is immune from 120mm rounds (which 120mm rounds? DM63? M829A3? etc). JonCatalán (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

mobility

"The fighting capabilities of these vehicles was evaluated during numerous war games and according to them if the war with NATO would start, the T-80 MBTs would reach the English Channel within 5-6 days (with the Soviet forces having the upper hand) or 2 weeks (with the NATO forces having the upper hand)"

Whomever wrote this has no concept of how armored warfare works. Not only is it highly unlikely the soviets would ever approach maximum cross-country speeds, the time it takes to refuel a division, let alone an army, is not something he took into account. In addition, what are the odds of not making contact with NATO tanks? Not only does each engagement slow you down, you have to reconsolidate, rearm, and refuel. I doubt anyone, even Patton, could drive a force from the intra-german border to the pas-de-calais in six days.Montizzle (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory majority

Contradictory statements. I may be able to find a source which helps straighten this out, but feel free to weigh in if you have one. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:17 z

• “About 300 were still at the Ukrainian factory when the Soviet Union broke up, so the T-80UD is more common in Ukrainian service than Russian.”
• “While a number of T-80 MBTs was inherited by Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, Russia still managed to save the majority of those tanks for itself.”

Excuse me, do you see the difference between T-80UD and all other T-80 variants? Just so I know. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at that three times and just misread it. —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 18:17 z

Splitsection

I suggest we split off T-80 tank variants, following the model of M113 Armored Personnel Carrier variants, T-34 variants, M4 Sherman variants, Panzer I variants and others. The long section would be replaced by a clearer list of the basic variants.

This would avoid a big interruption in the prose, and allow the variants to be covered in any amount of detail.

Any objections? —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 19:02 z

I'm good when it comes to variants and I assisted during creation of T-54/T-55 Operators and variants and BMP-1 variants sub articles so I'll shall take care of that. I haven't updated the list of T-80 variants in a long time and there's still some information that would like to add in order to make the description of each variant a bit more specific. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you should. Most of that list are variants of the tank itself, which would be better explained under "development history" (if this article was written to much higher standard of quality). There is good news! Steven Zaloga is publishing a new book on the T-80 with Osprey Publishing, coming out February 2009, and that makes at least three-four major English sources on just the T-80. I think a good article, without enough reliable sources, can be made here when that book comes out. I was actually thinking of doing it myself, but all these edit wars are making me think twice. JonCatalán (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I only offered my services if a decision to split the section would be made.

Also those aren't edit wars. I'm simply defending sources that I've found. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I should comment that at FAC level most internet sources must go due to lack of reliability. There will be enough published information to write a good article. JonCatalán (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but sometimes those big sources don't mention some details because the books are either incomplete or outdated in some respects. That's why we have to use multiple sources. I don't want a good article I want a perfect article with all the details. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but unfortunately these details don't come from reliable sources, so they can't be deemed true. JonCatalán (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless they are when thought straight about. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You are trying to argue against Wikipedia MoS. Those sources aren't reliable, end of story - they are self-published. We can go around in circles, but in the end all you need to do is look up the rules on Wikipedia. I have gone through enough FACs to have learned my lesson. JonCatalán (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Than the rules have to be changed because they are illogical and are made in such a way that there is no reason for us, human beings, to be around as it seems like a computer program could do just as good of a job if not better. Unlike some people I am not afraid of questioning the rules of anything as long as they are illogical or in another way wrong. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing in those sources that prove that they are reliable - they are self-published and aren't referenced. JonCatalán (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion.

Last few days have been very painful for the article and people editing it. What I want to suggest is to discuss every dispute in civilized manner rather than going on "crusades" deleting content without first discussing it. During such "crusades" a lot of (sourced) content can be lost many times without the intention of the "crusader". Because of that I suggest changing the specific parts like numbers from now on as it is much better than completely rewriting and recreating the sections, infoboxes or tables while the old form would do just as good. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does civilized discussion start by labelling me “crusader”? Shall I give you a nickname too?

I've discussed the deletions at length and linked specifically to the policies which recommend removing dubious facts and avoiding self-published sources. It is you who argues against them and continues to revert. As long as you keep it up, how can the content problem tags be removed from this article, and how can its assessment improve? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 19:59 z

I'm not referring to you personally. I'm referring to everybody people out there who goes around deleting content in the name of Wikipedia.

As I told you on your talk page you're taking the Wikipedia policies too literally and act not like a human being but rather like a machine the only purpose of which is to follow the rules without question or thought. ~The Wikipedia policies were created to address issues like this on Wikipedia yes but that doesn't mean that we have to follow them as if they are guidelines given to us by god. We have to think when they are adequate for the situation and when they are not. We have to make exceptions because no rule will ever be absolute as there will always be situations in which logic and commonsense call for an exception. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy represents consensus, and even says that in rare cases exceptions can be made when there is consensus. Your suggestion to make an exception in this case has no consensus, because I disagree with you. So then do we go with the consensus policy, or do you just keep pushing for an exception because you are right and I am wrong? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 20:24 z

I'm "pushing for an exception" because you aren't looking at this logically and stubbornly follow Wikipedia policies without question or thought. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at least we're defining what is in dispute here. One more question. Exactly which citations are you suggesting we make an exception for?

I count 32 footnotes for the self-published hobby site Gary's Guide, almost 50 for the anonymous, foreign-language Czołgi Świata magazine, 25 for the anonymous, self-published JED site, over 15 for the self-published globalsecurity.org, 12 for the anonymous, self-published, foreign-language Pancerni.net, and a few other miscellaneous sources which would not normally be allowed.

Tell me how many of these footnotes are so valuable that they shouldn't be replaced by references which meet WP:Verifiability? Do you think the exception should me made just in T-80, or in other Wikipedia articles too?

Gary's Guide should be left be when it's not conflicting with one of "verifiable" sources (it also has references of its own as I already informed you on your talk page). The same goes for Czołgi Świata. However it is not completely anonymous as I happen to know that the name of redaction which created it is StudioPrint. The fact that it is in foreign language means nothing when it comes down to the quality as a difference in language is a difference in form and therefore doesn't have an effect on the core. JED site like Gary's Guide and Czołgi Świata should be used when not conflicting with "verifiable" sources. The same goes to global security. It should be noted that Global Security is largely basing itself on materials made available by DoD and other US military branches. The Pancerni website should also apply when not conflicting with "verifiable" sources. As I already said the difference in language doesn't have an effect on quality. The details that they offer which aren't conflicting with "verifiable" sources should be included.

Now tell me why sources which you call "verifiable" are so. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you're asking for consensus for just the 135 or so mentioned footnotes in this article, or for all references to these sites in Wikipedia? —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 21:38 z

Look we both know that you're not taking this seriously. Here's my concept: have "verifiable" sources set up a basis for the article than add the details from other sources as long as these details don't conflict with the "verifiable" sources. Can you comprehend this concept?

Also I would like to know why the sources that you're calling "verifiable" can be trusted without question? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than having arguments with several other editors simultaneously, you might want to familiarize yourself with basic wikipedia policies such as WP:Verify, WP:Reliable, and especially WP:Copyvio instead. These are wikipedia policies. They are not optional. They are not mere suggestions. They aren't editors' opinions. If you'd like I bet you can even ask someone to mentor you so as to become a more productive wikipedia contributor. But if you cannot go along with these basic policies, I think Michael is right - you are making articles worse, not better. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that when Verdeja was going through its FAC they required me to eliminate Jedsite from the reference list since it was not reliable. These were replaced by book sources, however. JonCatalán (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

The inclusion of Kazakhstan among operators is single-sourced to an anonymous Polish-language publication. I can find no supporting evidence elsewhere. Any objection to removing this as unverifiable? —Michael Z. 2008-12-28 16:38 z

Editors like this Michael Z are the types that are runining Wikipedia

As a neutral, who just found their way to this article by way of a mention on TV regarding North Korea's own armour capabilities, I must say these sort of edit battles are all too common now on this site.

SuperTank17 it is obvious from your name that you use, that you have an interest in tanks. I would also assume that the work on this article you have been doing is a labor of love. I define labor as something that has no worth just a love, where as work is something you expect a reward for carrying out.

I can see that you have been collating facts about this particular tank and its national users from various sources. Basically putting all information into an one-stop shop. All edits have been made in GOOD FAITH and with the purpose of conveying to any interested parties (like me) INFORMATION.

Then along comes  —Michael Z.who starts hacking away at the article slapping it with tags and generally being an officious bureaucrat. Their behaviour puts you on the backfoot as they demand PROOF, EVIDENCE and VERIFIABILITY. They don't have to do a thing, because they claim to be only sticking to the rules.

LOL first and most important rule of Wikipedia is: THERE ARE NO RULES ONLY GUIDELINES.

These editors are what are known as Rules lawyer. They remove, they don't create. They attack, they don't support. They evoke the letter of the law not the spirit. They are only interested in their own hubris and personal power. It's quite obvious looking back to an early July version that the article was perfectly readable, nothing outlandish or false. Much of the article - and this is something that Michael Z has failed to realise - was cross referenced. There was nothing contradictory, which is usual if there is bullshit masquerading as fact.

People like this Michael Z are unimaginative, mentally impotent, martinets who's only pleasure in this universe is to think within a very tiny box; a box that has been created by others so there is no thinking required - sic fundamentalists.

Don't question; obey!!

BTW SuperTank17 you are absolutely right regarding the ridiculous loop created by the notion of verifiability. It's basically the fallacious argument called an appeal to authority.

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

By using this approach, Michael Z can always cherry pick any source they want until it fits their criteria. Plain ignorance. Consider this final thought experiment: suppose the internet and Wikipedia existed three hundred years ago. Doctors were called doctors, just like now, so they could be argued to be experts in medical matters. Say someone broke a leg. The only choice according to all the medical books of the time is to amputate. Wikipedia would say that and this assertion would be supported by the works of Galen, Hypocrates and the entire medical profession. Role on the centuries and we know that cutting a limb off is not necessary.

There is no such thing as verifiability, it's an illusion created by self-fulfilling beliefs of the common majority.

On Wikipedia, Good faith should underpin the choice to delete copy from articles. If good faith is lacking (Sic:vandalism/NPOV/advertising etc) then it should be removed without question.

But what is going on here is a Rules lawyer bent on scoring points; not the improvement of this article for the greater good.