File talk:Busted T-72BA near Starobesheve in East Ukraine.jpg

This is a T-72BA (Т-72БА) Russian main-battle tank. With very high probability this tank can be attributed to the Russian regular troops that intervened into the War in August of 2014. Ukrainian army did not use tanks of this model and modification at the time of the battle.--VictorAnyakin (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is OR. Look here: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm --Markscheider (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising an interesting question! This is an ongoing and somewhat intriguing issue since T-72 was mass produced both in Kharkov, Ukraine and Nizhny Tagil, Russia and garrisoned in different locations at the time of the USSR's breakdown: Facts regarding T-72 tank.... One thing is clear -- this is definitely T-72 per laufrolle! Best, --Nabak (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, T-72 for sure. B3 or not B3, this is the question... As a first: this is the very same tank which was photographed by reuters a few days later (Oct. 2, 2014). By then it's cannon was already cut of (for whatever reason - i don't know). If you take a look at this document, p. 67. there's the pic in question. Check reuters to see it from different angles. It's really the same tank, the other pic on commons gives roughly the same perspective. In this ARES document (which one cannot label as 'pro-russian' or 'pro-seps') it is identified as T-72 mod. 1989. So - imho - it is possibly (and likely, if i might add that) that Ukraine inherited T-72's of this model from the former soviet union. The aforementioned document makes a distinction between this particular tank and a T-72B3. Take note of the space right of the cannon, where normally the infrared searchlight would be fastened. In case of the burned-out tank it was probably hit and is no longer in place - the T-72B3 doesn't have space for it anyway and instead features there a Kontakt-5-Modul for increased protecion. Ukraine marked it's vehicles with two white stripes (skunk style), runnig from front to rear.[1] Of course they are not visible after the tank burned out. Further the Ares document mentions multiple side-swaps of tanks. So we don't know if the original file description is correct or not and have to agf. --Markscheider (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, a tank busted in Ukraine doesn't automatically make it a Ukrainian tank. For example, check this T-64BV tank that is of the same model as used in Ukrainian Army - but it is not a Ukrainian tank, as it was never in the stocks of Ukrainian Army. Saying that the T-72BA on the photo is Ukrainian is already an original (and inaccurate) research. A proper and neutral title would be "T-72 tank busted in Eastern Ukraine". But the claim that this T-72BA is a Ukrainian one is not based on facts.--vityok (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the terms of 'proper and neutral', but i didn't loaded it up. So pls adress the uploader or make a request for renaming. Regarding the T-64 example: this is KyivPost. If they say that the gras is green, i would go out to my lawn and check. Ukraine inherited all sorts of tanks from soviet times, produced half of them, upgraded the other ones and sold (or tried to sell) them on the international market. Ukraina proposed and marketed repairs, upgrades and all sorts of things for all kinds of soviet (and later on: russian) tanks on the market. If someone postulates that a certain model was never in ukrainian stocks - this is to be taken with more than the proverbial grain of salt. Just for example: Ukraina made a bid for upgrading Indian T-72s, T-80s and T-90s, which included the installation of Thales optronics. Back to this particular T-72: the uploader claimed that it is a T-72 (confirmed), destroyed (confirmed), in Donetsk region (confirmed) and belongs to kyiv forces (confirmation needed). There's an obvious lack of proof that this claim is beeing made wrongly or deliberately false. Therefore we cannot attribut this particular tank to one or another force. And in this case we have to give credit to the uploader. --Markscheider (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Very enlightening discussion regarding the types of tanks produced and used in Ukraine! Now, regarding the file name. It is always hard to find both a laconic and at the same time descriptive name. This particular one is connected to the fact that the still under consideration came from a DPR's booster video. So, the question is, would they be willingly showing around busted tanks that "can be attributed to the Russian regular troops that intervened into the War in August of 2014"? But regardless of any logical extrapolation, if anybody is concerned with the name, feel free to request a name change, since we don't wage wars on commons over file names, or do we? Also, feel free to upload as many images of busted Russian tanks as you can find on the Internet with CC license! Best, --Nabak (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

T-64A, July 12, 2014

Could it be that this is the very same "captured russian tank" mentionend by vityok?--Markscheider (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

????

Everything is in the eye of the beholder... :)) But now we are talking captured Russian tanks! To please my esteemed colleague vityok I have made a neat, politically correct Category:Exhibition «Presence. Proofs of Russian troops' aggression on the territory of Ukraine», February 21-28, 2015 and filled it with images that proudly fly 100% politically correct names. Also, I am ceremoniously asking you, my dear Markscheider, in recognition of your superior knowledge of tanks to kindly assign a correct tank category for this Russian iron beast captured in Donbass (as it was proclaimed by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine). Wishing both of you the best of life, --Nabak (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a rhetoric question. Nevermind, _this is_ the same tank. Unfortunately user:Konserj doesnt gave much information (infact nothing at all) about where or in which circumstances he shot this tank at the trailer. Unfortunately #2 the ERA tiles were removed from the turret. Therefore identifcation is somewhat difficult. Karpenko (Обозрение отечественной бронетанковой техники (1905–1995 гг.)) has no 100%matching picture, it could be either a heavily upgraded T-64A o -B, with a small chance that its a -BV without side ERA, as Vityok says. All of them could have been ukrainian tanks, so i wonder on which facts some assume, that it couldn't. Maybe Vityok would be so kind to elaborate? Comparing the cobblestone layout between file:Виставка ЗСУ. Танк Т64А-1.JPG, file:Виставка ЗСУ. Танк Т64А-2.JPG and

this T-64BV tank it seems to me, that the picture were shot in the same place. It's therefore safe to assume, that this tank stand at least since summer 2014 in Kyiv. --Markscheider (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a T-64BV tank.--vityok (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've figured out by myself, shortly after my last comment and moved those files into the right category. --Markscheider (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaiming request

I've submitted a renaiming request. Also, additional discussion of those two tanks on this picture can be found here (in russian).--vityok (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. --Markscheider (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly do that, me dear vityok and please don't apologize for quoting a blog in Russian! ;) But if I were you, I wouldn't take this visibly partisan blog entry for a definite source. Do your own research and make your own judgement to be solely responsible for it since you, not that blog's author, is making a request for renaming. But thank you anyway, that blog dude made me laugh when he wrote, sorry, I am gonna quote now from my definitely fading memory, that after seizing a supposedly Russian T-72 in the nowhere, among the fields and woods, the Ukrainian warriors "obviously" first painted the white stripes on it's front end and only after that made an incriminating photo. So, my point is that the best and most effective war propaganda is to tell the truth presenting all sides, and that I don't trust no blog authors especially those in the know how to run graphics software but will definitely trust my fellow wikipedian if he says something. With best wishes, --Nabak (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@vityok, just another partisan source, only this time, from a different perspective, to aid you in your so needed research about T-72 in Russian and Ukrainian service: When Kiev's forces would run out of tanks (google translation) (original). Best, --Nabak (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nabak I don't understand how is it related to the fact that the tank on the photo is T-72БА and to this discussion at all.--vityok (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@vityok, oh, then never mind!--Nabak (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed controversial categories

Removed two categories that implied that the T-72BA on the photo is:

1. a Ukrainian T-72;
2. belonged to Ukrainian armor in the war with Russia.

because: there is no recorded and reliable evidence that Ukraine had T-72BA tanks in service at the time of this battle.--vityok (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a question, my dear vityok, what do you mean by controversial? The Oxford Dictionary explains this wonderful word as "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement". I was really surprised and awfully sorry to hear that an obscure and pure technical commons Category:T-72 tanks in Ukrainian service may have caused strife or public disagreement somewhere in a real world. Or, by using such a strong language you were simply hinting that you may be acting on behalf of a certain public, are you? --Nabak (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

More tanks!

@Markscheider What do you think of this particular tank?:

• [2] from [3] --Nabak (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's an early T-72A without era. Probably it's serial number links to a russian unit from far beyond the urals, and his batteries were produced 2016 in Leningrad. Ukrainian Army has never has had one of those, maybe they've captured it from russian troops in Snizhne.</sarkasm off> Our dear collegue Vityok will prbly explain. Just in case you didn't notice: Category talk:T-64BV (searchlight-number 9) and Category:T-64BV (searchlight-number 9). Never ever would ukrainian army buy batteries in russia and the imagination, that SBU would stage evidence is completely beyond my comprehension. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE BIG, BAD RUSSIANS! No doubt about it. --Markscheider (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, my dear Markscheider you kindly confirmed my suspicions! This is an armour from File:3rd separate tank battalion (Ukraine).png dated September 15, 2014. Regarding Russian tank batteries, I remembered that there was a scandal in 2013 when it was disclosed that Poroshenko's business partner (accidentally, they both own/owned a business in Dnepropetrovsk [4], which sells all kind of batteries to the Ukrainian Army including the 12CT-85-type [5], [6]) won a tender to supply around 150 Russian 12CT-85's making 100% markup on each unit [7]. The exact producer was not specified, as well as the last two letters in a string, but they were 12СТ-85's. By the way, here is a handy source explaining all the 12СТ-85PM's designation letters: [8]. --Nabak (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's time for a basic statement, i think: according to Commons' rules, this is not the place to argue over political controversies. Don't let our preferences for one or another side in this conflict influence our work. Vityok took the same route of arguments as some people have done with MH17/Su-25 service ceiling (i don't know if you're aware of that): trying to proof the other side is the bad side with technical details. If one looks at Category talk:T-64BV (searchlight-number 9), then it is quite obvious, that the first three url's belonging to ukrainian official sources (aka SBU) and jane's refers to them. So this counts only as one source, and it's obviously biased. Arms manufacturing industries in Russia and Ukraine are close interweaved, because of theyre common past in the soviet union. And this wasn't reduced that much in the years since until know. As a matter of fact, this close ties contributed to russia blackmailing ukraine in 2013 (as estern media put it. In fact, russia only stated, that cooperation in arms business would have to come to an end, if ukraine becomes a EU associate or even member). So ukrainian tanks use russian batteries, who would have thought of that? Maybe producing them by themself would have been too expensive. Batteries are not sensitive technology. All the rest is just paperwork. Anyone with a PC and printer can do that. And for categorization: as long as Donbass is part of Ukraine, tanks of DNR and LPR are tanks in ukrainian service. Everything else should belong to file or category descriptions. --Markscheider (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The source I provided is based on official documents of an official investigation into the criminal case. It might be biased, but it is an official source that was not yet shown as being inaccurate. A tank being seized by authorities in Ukraine, especially during a war with Russia, does not automatically put it into Ukrainian service. In any case, I don't really understand what this particular dispute is about and how batteries made by Ista in Ukraine are confused with batteries made by Elektrotyaga in Russia.--vityok (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)