This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All this article needs to reach B-class on the military history wikiproject's assessment scale is a brief introductory section explaining the development of the T-80 and citations for all the different models. Nick Dowling ( talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ob'yekt 219A should not be referred to as T-80A, as it was never accepted for service and therefore was not afforded a designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.5 ( talk) 16:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ User:MarkusDorazio Did a little research here and found a few interesting things.
The 1P96MT-02 (the 02 bit is key) isn't a 1970s sight, unless we are going to say a Leopard 2A8 is a 1970s tank. True the exterior is more or less the same, knobs, housing etc. However the -02 is a 2nd generation thermal with a 640x480 res and uncooled microbolometer that is actually pretty good. Granted resolution is low compared to visual optics, but this is true of most thermals which tend to sacrifice FOV in favor of zoom. 640x480 is better than all Leopard 2 sights prior to the A7, or the M1A2 pre-SEP. Additionally it's not a Russian sight, but rather a PRC import.
Whereas the Sosna-U is a Russian sight, the internals have been produced from scratch in Russia since 2011. All T-90ms have it, the majority of which have been produced since February 2022. The sight block, is made by VOMZ, the thermal matrix comes from Mikron, and the Catherine-XP is produced under license.
I know defense UA is biased, but see [1] and [2].
Several sources also state that some obr. 2023 are using the Sosna-U so in reality the production is a mixture. Finally, we can't put multiple sources together to say something that none of them say individually, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. So we can either find new sources that say exactly what the article says though that seems like cherry picking. Bloat the article with a bunch of sources saying different things, which is unhelpful for short list entries like this one, or just omit as too complicated for a short list entry.
Final mostly irrelevant note, the 1P96MT-02 likely is worse than the Sosna-U for these tanks but not because of any problem with the sight itself, but due to poorer systems integration.
I thought it best to omit anything about the thermals, as too complicated for a list entry, so I just removed it. 144.121.121.105 ( talk) 22:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All this article needs to reach B-class on the military history wikiproject's assessment scale is a brief introductory section explaining the development of the T-80 and citations for all the different models. Nick Dowling ( talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ob'yekt 219A should not be referred to as T-80A, as it was never accepted for service and therefore was not afforded a designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.5 ( talk) 16:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ User:MarkusDorazio Did a little research here and found a few interesting things.
The 1P96MT-02 (the 02 bit is key) isn't a 1970s sight, unless we are going to say a Leopard 2A8 is a 1970s tank. True the exterior is more or less the same, knobs, housing etc. However the -02 is a 2nd generation thermal with a 640x480 res and uncooled microbolometer that is actually pretty good. Granted resolution is low compared to visual optics, but this is true of most thermals which tend to sacrifice FOV in favor of zoom. 640x480 is better than all Leopard 2 sights prior to the A7, or the M1A2 pre-SEP. Additionally it's not a Russian sight, but rather a PRC import.
Whereas the Sosna-U is a Russian sight, the internals have been produced from scratch in Russia since 2011. All T-90ms have it, the majority of which have been produced since February 2022. The sight block, is made by VOMZ, the thermal matrix comes from Mikron, and the Catherine-XP is produced under license.
I know defense UA is biased, but see [1] and [2].
Several sources also state that some obr. 2023 are using the Sosna-U so in reality the production is a mixture. Finally, we can't put multiple sources together to say something that none of them say individually, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. So we can either find new sources that say exactly what the article says though that seems like cherry picking. Bloat the article with a bunch of sources saying different things, which is unhelpful for short list entries like this one, or just omit as too complicated for a short list entry.
Final mostly irrelevant note, the 1P96MT-02 likely is worse than the Sosna-U for these tanks but not because of any problem with the sight itself, but due to poorer systems integration.
I thought it best to omit anything about the thermals, as too complicated for a list entry, so I just removed it. 144.121.121.105 ( talk) 22:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)