This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-80 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
T-80 | |
---|---|
Service history | |
Wars |
August Coup First Chechen War Second Chechen War??? War in Donbass [1]??? |
I have removed unverified claims that T-80 was used in 2nd Chechen War / Donbass from the articles infobox (found in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T-80&oldid=1050581315). The Donbass reference provided in the infobox was a direct battlefield report coming from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM). This is what the source said:
"A convoy of ten unmarked T-80 tanks was seen by the SMM travelling west on highway H-21 in Zuhres (36km east of Donetsk, “DPR”-controlled)"
The source report is from 2015. It should not be considered to be reliable because of the fog of war and because it has not been corroborated by any other source since that date.
Also, every source I've looked up claims that the T80 was NOT used in the 2nd Chechen war. I have therefore removed this claim from the infobox. Sources are quoted on the article page:
The T-80's first (and only) use in combat was in 1994 in the First Chechen War, where they suffered heavy losses in urban combat. Due to design flaws and high operating costs, Russia has not used the tanks in later conflicts such as the 1999 Second Chechen War, the 2008 Russo-Georgian War [2], or the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War [3].
References
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)
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.
"russian" is quiet wrong. it should be "soviet" -- zeno 23:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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
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
-- 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
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
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
You can talk about it on my talk page. Dudtz 9/19/06 6:11 PM EST
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.
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 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) .
I think the tank on the lead photo is a fake but better than british one:
File:9e2ee5505c06f78ddcf9e39297a9346b.jpg
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) .
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 their 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
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
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
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
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)
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
I've removed this claim. — Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:58 z
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
I've removed this claim. — Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:59 z
Requesting a removal/deletion of Syria as an operator of the T-80 under "Operators", as there is no substantial source which supports this assertion. Meevinman ( talk) 07:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
“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
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
Also only visible in the JED site. — Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:12 z
“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
“
composite armour
It can withstand 120 mm rounds (triple layer)
[1]”—the reference provided is a hobby site.
[15] 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
"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)"
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
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
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)
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)
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
Readded section made by 81.155.57.143. REMOVED ALL MICHEL Z REFERENCES THEREFORE THIS IS NO LONGER A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT CRITICISM OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS.
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 come people who start hacking away at the article slapping it with tags and generally being officious bureaucrats. 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 they have failed to realise - was cross referenced. There was nothing contradictory, which is usual if there is bullshit masquerading as fact.
People like this 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, they 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.57.143 ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Readded and modiefied by SuperTank17 ( talk) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit the 125mm 2A46-2 gun, because this seems to be a NATO designation fo it. I've seen the T-80 variants page and also a link to a Russian Tank site stating that the gun's real name is different. These pages state that it is called the D-81TM "Rapira-3" smooth bore gun.
Can I also mention the how the rubber attached to the T-80 helps defend it from tandem-HEAT warheads? It is visible on the side-skirts and at the bottom portion of the front hull.
This link also helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapier-4 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And also I've read from websites stating that the few of the T-80's variants are comparable to western tanks, most notably the Soviet/Russian T-80U/UKs and Ukrainian T-84s. (maybe Is should state this in the T-80 models page) They are armed with up-to-date targeting systems and IR sights. Armor of these tanks are also fairly good, as they use K-5 ERA, which, in the Kontakt-5, states that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time". I have the full statement from a website of Jane's Defense Weekly. Websites also state that a lot of T-80BVs and T-80Bs were lost in the Chechen war because they lacked ERA and sufficient training.
T-80s also have a long firing range of 4,000 meters or 4km whilst western tanks have a range of 3,000 meters or 3km. They also fire HVAPFSDS rounds(the 3BM32)
And a few more information on it. As for the article guidelines, I've read them all and fully understand the terms for editing and creating articles. Rapier-4 ( talk) 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for that included the fact that the forces selected to capture Grozny were not prepared for such an operation while the city was defended by, among others, veterans of Soviet War in Afghanistan. The T-80 tanks used in this operation either did not have reactive armour (T-80B), or it was not fitted before the start of the operation (T-80BV).
Please stop removing the passages regarding ammunition vulnerability with edit comments of "reverting not sourced claim". They are referenced to Warford which is linked and avilable online to read, Armor Magazine is reputable. Here are the salient extracts:
"In the West, the development and adoption of semi-combustible ammunition has been accompanied by a supporting redesign of how tank main gun ammunition is stored aboard the tank. The result is the incorporation of an ammunition magazine separated from the tank crew by armored blast doors, and equipped with “blow-out panels” to direct the force of an ammunition explosion or fire away from the crew."
"Admitting that the ammunition carried by tanks like the T-80BV is potentially dangerous to the crews, the Russians also stated that the problem would be solved. This single shortcoming may in fact have already been solved..."
I have reinstated the passages again.
Hohum ( talk) 20:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
it is written in 1100 and 900 against the projectile against the heat, it's not very realistic. today there are 500 in the article for the original 1978 and 800 ( http://artofwar.ru/w/wechkanow_i_w/vivboewyetanki-semejstwot-72t-80t-90wtoroeizdanie19122011.shtml) for 80U + kontakt5 '86, but 1100 is given without the version and year, and this much, is much too much. T90 in original Rossi is listed as 900 and 950 (1989), 800 + 800 and export (2005). but T80 1100 (1986) does not look real.
http://www.milrus.com/sv/t80/text.shtml this article http://www.milrus.com/about/index.shtml this site (about it) 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/bronetekhnika/osnovnoj_boevoj_tank_t_80/13-1-0-366 this is a good and trustworthy source digit 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone here claims that the protection of T-80U is KE 1000mm. This is not realistic at all. Although he cited his reference, I believe that it is not suitable to Wikipedia's standards.
I believe that this is the most reliable source I can find for T-80U protection, written by Steven J. Zaloga in 2009. On page 24~25 says that the protection of T-80U with Kontakt-5 is KE 780mm CE 1320mm, which is far lower than his claim. 115.88.156.13 ( talk) 08:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
how do you say this source has seen this tank only in the form of photos on the internet, hahhaha. any source for RUtank better if it is the source of of RU 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
maybe if China + expert say that it is M1A2sep Abrams = helicopter you believe +??? 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
by the way! The latest version of Leopard and Abrams also claim the armor for meter tower but not body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Why note that "while evaluating the vehicle, the US and UK are alleged to have noted any weak spots and flaws of the T-80U"? It is precisely to note any weak spots and flaws that the vehicles were acquired. This is not an "allegation", it is the logical reason for the purchase. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
T-80. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Stating CFE numbers, the T-80s were present in more than 15,000 examples. The total production, in the early '2000s, was over 18,000 units. So the statement about 5,000 examples is totally false. Even the article says that T-80s only in Russian service were atleast 5,000, not to talk about the other countries, starting with Ukraine and so on. Check better your sources and revise this poorly made article, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 ( talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Here there are the CFE T-80 tanks declared.
Region---IV.1----IV.2---IV.3---IV.4---V.1
So the T-80's were more than 16,000 examples, not 5,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 17:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But no reference to the nickname of the tank in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3913:1700:587B:43E8:685D:C8C0 ( talk)
@ Irondome and 185.155.162.50: Excuse me for the quick change. Syrian is not known to have had any T-80. There is no photo, nor any delivery report. See [16] : "Following the turn of the century Syria sought to further enhance its armored forces by acquiring the T-80 from Russia, but there were no confirmed reports of actual deliveries". For Syrian amour, see [17]. No T-80 is mentionned. The error of military-today.com may have come from the Syrian T-82, local name of T-72A delivered in 1982 [18]. -- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 09:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
NATO realized that new Soviet tanks could reach the Atlantic within two weeks... - So what ? A fairly comprehensible, not that clear, somewhat awkward statement. What made such an impression on NATO that western Military liaison missions' teams were extremely keen to get nearer information about that wonder beast named T-80 ? -- 129.187.244.19 ( talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't Abrams, Leopard, Ariete better than T 80 and more comparable to T 90? Al Khalid, AMX and Chinese T 96 are actually comparable. SReader21 ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
And of course Challenger 2 also is more comparable to T 90, Challenger 1 is fine. SReader21 ( talk) 00:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There's an error stating that T80U has thermal imaging system when it actually doesn't. 37.173.120.9 ( talk) 08:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
In answer to the questioning of the provenance of the second photo, this appears in Zaloga's "T-80 Standard Tank" and is credited thus:
"Mystery tank. This is the first widely-distributed photo of a new tank that NATO called SMT1983/1 (Soviet Medium Tank). This T-80B of the 40th Guards Tank Regiment, 11th Guards Tank Division, was taken by a member of the French Military Liaison Mission in Germany in December 1984 near the Konigsbruck PMA (Permanent Restricted Area) (US DoD)." LoatesyJnr ( talk) 13:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently found this documentary on the war and in some footage what appears to be a T-80 is visible, for example at 2:29:02, but at some other points in the video too: Период распада. Война в Таджикистане. - YouTube
So participation in it should be added to the list of conflicts it took part in and the operational history section
D1d2d3d29 (
talk)
16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T-80 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
T-80 | |
---|---|
Service history | |
Wars |
August Coup First Chechen War Second Chechen War??? War in Donbass [1]??? |
I have removed unverified claims that T-80 was used in 2nd Chechen War / Donbass from the articles infobox (found in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T-80&oldid=1050581315). The Donbass reference provided in the infobox was a direct battlefield report coming from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM). This is what the source said:
"A convoy of ten unmarked T-80 tanks was seen by the SMM travelling west on highway H-21 in Zuhres (36km east of Donetsk, “DPR”-controlled)"
The source report is from 2015. It should not be considered to be reliable because of the fog of war and because it has not been corroborated by any other source since that date.
Also, every source I've looked up claims that the T80 was NOT used in the 2nd Chechen war. I have therefore removed this claim from the infobox. Sources are quoted on the article page:
The T-80's first (and only) use in combat was in 1994 in the First Chechen War, where they suffered heavy losses in urban combat. Due to design flaws and high operating costs, Russia has not used the tanks in later conflicts such as the 1999 Second Chechen War, the 2008 Russo-Georgian War [2], or the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War [3].
References
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)
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.
"russian" is quiet wrong. it should be "soviet" -- zeno 23:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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
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
-- 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
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
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
You can talk about it on my talk page. Dudtz 9/19/06 6:11 PM EST
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.
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 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) .
I think the tank on the lead photo is a fake but better than british one:
File:9e2ee5505c06f78ddcf9e39297a9346b.jpg
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) .
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 their 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
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
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
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
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)
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
I've removed this claim. — Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:58 z
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
I've removed this claim. — Michael Z. 2008-08-24 06:59 z
Requesting a removal/deletion of Syria as an operator of the T-80 under "Operators", as there is no substantial source which supports this assertion. Meevinman ( talk) 07:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
“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
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
Also only visible in the JED site. — Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:12 z
“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
“
composite armour
It can withstand 120 mm rounds (triple layer)
[1]”—the reference provided is a hobby site.
[15] 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
"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)"
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
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
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)
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)
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
Readded section made by 81.155.57.143. REMOVED ALL MICHEL Z REFERENCES THEREFORE THIS IS NO LONGER A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT CRITICISM OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS.
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 come people who start hacking away at the article slapping it with tags and generally being officious bureaucrats. 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 they have failed to realise - was cross referenced. There was nothing contradictory, which is usual if there is bullshit masquerading as fact.
People like this 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, they 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.57.143 ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Readded and modiefied by SuperTank17 ( talk) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit the 125mm 2A46-2 gun, because this seems to be a NATO designation fo it. I've seen the T-80 variants page and also a link to a Russian Tank site stating that the gun's real name is different. These pages state that it is called the D-81TM "Rapira-3" smooth bore gun.
Can I also mention the how the rubber attached to the T-80 helps defend it from tandem-HEAT warheads? It is visible on the side-skirts and at the bottom portion of the front hull.
This link also helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapier-4 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And also I've read from websites stating that the few of the T-80's variants are comparable to western tanks, most notably the Soviet/Russian T-80U/UKs and Ukrainian T-84s. (maybe Is should state this in the T-80 models page) They are armed with up-to-date targeting systems and IR sights. Armor of these tanks are also fairly good, as they use K-5 ERA, which, in the Kontakt-5, states that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time". I have the full statement from a website of Jane's Defense Weekly. Websites also state that a lot of T-80BVs and T-80Bs were lost in the Chechen war because they lacked ERA and sufficient training.
T-80s also have a long firing range of 4,000 meters or 4km whilst western tanks have a range of 3,000 meters or 3km. They also fire HVAPFSDS rounds(the 3BM32)
And a few more information on it. As for the article guidelines, I've read them all and fully understand the terms for editing and creating articles. Rapier-4 ( talk) 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for that included the fact that the forces selected to capture Grozny were not prepared for such an operation while the city was defended by, among others, veterans of Soviet War in Afghanistan. The T-80 tanks used in this operation either did not have reactive armour (T-80B), or it was not fitted before the start of the operation (T-80BV).
Please stop removing the passages regarding ammunition vulnerability with edit comments of "reverting not sourced claim". They are referenced to Warford which is linked and avilable online to read, Armor Magazine is reputable. Here are the salient extracts:
"In the West, the development and adoption of semi-combustible ammunition has been accompanied by a supporting redesign of how tank main gun ammunition is stored aboard the tank. The result is the incorporation of an ammunition magazine separated from the tank crew by armored blast doors, and equipped with “blow-out panels” to direct the force of an ammunition explosion or fire away from the crew."
"Admitting that the ammunition carried by tanks like the T-80BV is potentially dangerous to the crews, the Russians also stated that the problem would be solved. This single shortcoming may in fact have already been solved..."
I have reinstated the passages again.
Hohum ( talk) 20:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
it is written in 1100 and 900 against the projectile against the heat, it's not very realistic. today there are 500 in the article for the original 1978 and 800 ( http://artofwar.ru/w/wechkanow_i_w/vivboewyetanki-semejstwot-72t-80t-90wtoroeizdanie19122011.shtml) for 80U + kontakt5 '86, but 1100 is given without the version and year, and this much, is much too much. T90 in original Rossi is listed as 900 and 950 (1989), 800 + 800 and export (2005). but T80 1100 (1986) does not look real.
http://www.milrus.com/sv/t80/text.shtml this article http://www.milrus.com/about/index.shtml this site (about it) 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/bronetekhnika/osnovnoj_boevoj_tank_t_80/13-1-0-366 this is a good and trustworthy source digit 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone here claims that the protection of T-80U is KE 1000mm. This is not realistic at all. Although he cited his reference, I believe that it is not suitable to Wikipedia's standards.
I believe that this is the most reliable source I can find for T-80U protection, written by Steven J. Zaloga in 2009. On page 24~25 says that the protection of T-80U with Kontakt-5 is KE 780mm CE 1320mm, which is far lower than his claim. 115.88.156.13 ( talk) 08:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
how do you say this source has seen this tank only in the form of photos on the internet, hahhaha. any source for RUtank better if it is the source of of RU 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
maybe if China + expert say that it is M1A2sep Abrams = helicopter you believe +??? 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
by the way! The latest version of Leopard and Abrams also claim the armor for meter tower but not body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Why note that "while evaluating the vehicle, the US and UK are alleged to have noted any weak spots and flaws of the T-80U"? It is precisely to note any weak spots and flaws that the vehicles were acquired. This is not an "allegation", it is the logical reason for the purchase. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
T-80. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Stating CFE numbers, the T-80s were present in more than 15,000 examples. The total production, in the early '2000s, was over 18,000 units. So the statement about 5,000 examples is totally false. Even the article says that T-80s only in Russian service were atleast 5,000, not to talk about the other countries, starting with Ukraine and so on. Check better your sources and revise this poorly made article, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 ( talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Here there are the CFE T-80 tanks declared.
Region---IV.1----IV.2---IV.3---IV.4---V.1
So the T-80's were more than 16,000 examples, not 5,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 17:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But no reference to the nickname of the tank in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3913:1700:587B:43E8:685D:C8C0 ( talk)
@ Irondome and 185.155.162.50: Excuse me for the quick change. Syrian is not known to have had any T-80. There is no photo, nor any delivery report. See [16] : "Following the turn of the century Syria sought to further enhance its armored forces by acquiring the T-80 from Russia, but there were no confirmed reports of actual deliveries". For Syrian amour, see [17]. No T-80 is mentionned. The error of military-today.com may have come from the Syrian T-82, local name of T-72A delivered in 1982 [18]. -- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 09:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
NATO realized that new Soviet tanks could reach the Atlantic within two weeks... - So what ? A fairly comprehensible, not that clear, somewhat awkward statement. What made such an impression on NATO that western Military liaison missions' teams were extremely keen to get nearer information about that wonder beast named T-80 ? -- 129.187.244.19 ( talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't Abrams, Leopard, Ariete better than T 80 and more comparable to T 90? Al Khalid, AMX and Chinese T 96 are actually comparable. SReader21 ( talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
And of course Challenger 2 also is more comparable to T 90, Challenger 1 is fine. SReader21 ( talk) 00:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There's an error stating that T80U has thermal imaging system when it actually doesn't. 37.173.120.9 ( talk) 08:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
In answer to the questioning of the provenance of the second photo, this appears in Zaloga's "T-80 Standard Tank" and is credited thus:
"Mystery tank. This is the first widely-distributed photo of a new tank that NATO called SMT1983/1 (Soviet Medium Tank). This T-80B of the 40th Guards Tank Regiment, 11th Guards Tank Division, was taken by a member of the French Military Liaison Mission in Germany in December 1984 near the Konigsbruck PMA (Permanent Restricted Area) (US DoD)." LoatesyJnr ( talk) 13:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I recently found this documentary on the war and in some footage what appears to be a T-80 is visible, for example at 2:29:02, but at some other points in the video too: Период распада. Война в Таджикистане. - YouTube
So participation in it should be added to the list of conflicts it took part in and the operational history section
D1d2d3d29 (
talk)
16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)