Talk:T-80

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  T-80 ammunition storage in article contradicts itself... 

message: "russian" is quiet wrong. it should be "soviet" --zeno 23:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be Soviet, not Russian 

message: 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
::: I would add that the Soviet/Russian reliance on ERA is itself probably a tacit admission of the inadequacy of the basic armor package of the vehicle, and, given that current generation Western KE munitions are designed specifically to defeat ERA, I'm not sure it could be expected to even convey armor parity against larger tanks with heavier passive defenses. 75.136.98.197 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth of poorly armoured soviet tanks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most mobile tank 

message: 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)
thread_title:  T-80 (Ob.219sp2) with Kobra ??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Technical Data are Wrong 

message: “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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: “composite armour</br> It can withstand 120 mm rounds (triple layer)”—the reference provided is a hobby site.  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)
thread_title:  Armour 

message: "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)
thread_title:  mobility 

message: 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)
replies: text:  The basic argument you are making here is that you should not be required to follow the policies of wikipedia. To your credit you are honest and bold about your stance. But that doesn't make it OK. May I be so bold as to suggest you start your own website devoted to modern armor, since you seem to have a genuine liking for it? Because you don't seem to like wikipedia at all. I apologize if you find my suggestion offensive. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm way ahead of you as I already thought of that but I decided to stick with Wikipedia after a rather long break. You see if I create my own website I won't have to argue with you and some other people but on the other hand my articles there'll never achieve the same amount of publicity as they would here. And that's what I'm aiming at here. I'm trying to get my articles to get as much publicity as they possibly can and there's no better place to do that than Wikipedia. I want for those articles to be here with all the information a person may ever want or need about the subject for the sake of people like me. It took me a long time to gain my knowledge and I don't want to keep it for myself. I want to ensure that people who, like me, are interested in this subject will be able to find all the information here in a much shorter amount of time and take their interests even further and enrich this "well of knowledge" from which they once "drank". So as you can see in a long run it creates this sort of a platform for people to get the already collected pieces of knowledge and go search for new ones. This would create a self-efficient center for information that would grow and evolve as the time passes and I think this is one of the things that Wikipedia was created with in mind. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread still has nothing to do with improving this article. This page is not a forum. Please keep discussion to subjects about this article. If you want to argue about how wikipedia works, do it in the appropriate place. Hohum (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. 81.155.57.143 was referring to the issues with actions taken in this article but just because the same or similar actions were taken in other articles doesn't mean that it doesn't concern this article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It's a rant about people and procedures, not this article. Move on. Hohum (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was cross-refrenced 

message: 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:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/index.html
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: You didn't read the ref. Zaloga mentioned in his book that "Russian sources" claimed 780mm against APFSDS and 1,320mm against HEAT for the protection of T-80U.1.233.171.186 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text: LOL. Zaloga is one of the most credible author in this field. Remember that he had full access to TACOM archieve.1.233.171.186 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Because they really does. US already achieved 800mm KE 1300mm CE for the turret in 1988 with M1A1(HA), which used the 1st generation HAP. Although this estimate is from Zaloga's T-72 vs M1, this is matched with Soviet estimates in 1989. M1A2(SEP) and M1A1(AIM) are now using the 3rd generation HAP.1.233.171.186 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text: THe LOS thickness of later M1 series are estimated within 900-960mm. This is way thicker than the Soviet/Russian or other Eastern MBTs. Even Kontakt-5 provisdes only KE 140-200mm.115.88.156.22 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-80U armoring  

message: 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)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on T-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120317130428/http://i-sda.org/isda/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=37 to http://i-sda.org/isda/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=37
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here there are the CFE T-80 tanks declared.
Region---IV.1----IV.2---IV.3---IV.4---V.1
:T-80:    112    93    81      0       19
:T-80B:  3518--- 3015--2885---2885----503
:T-80BV: 594----594---569-----569-----0
:T-80BVK: 23-----23----22------22-----0
:T-80U:   410----410-----3------0-----0
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)
thread_title: CFE T-80's numbers

message: 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) 
: created The Channel Tank redirect, so can probably answer your question. - BilCat (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from Channel Tank 

message: 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  : "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 . 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 .
--Le Petit Chat (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for responding. I find the globalsecurity report convincing, as I think it is a WP:RS. I am inclined to accept that there has been a mis-identification of type someone in the reporting. I would say that unless anyone else has evidence that none of us are aware of, and presents it in the next 24 hours max, we should revert back to your version. Thanks, Irondome (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian T-80 ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NATO estimate (1980s) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  T80U didn't have thermal imaging system. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second photo on the page. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would have added it myself but i found no sources mentioning the T-80 being used specifically, every article on the battle for Turg height i found just mentioned "tanks" without specifying the type, so the only source is archival footage and i don't know how that's supposed to be cited  D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The T-80 was used by the Russian armed forces during the Tajikistan civil war