Jump to content

Talk:List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo for Uran-9

[edit]

Perhaps this link https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3600676 might be a suitable source for another photograph of Uran-9. Another link surprisingly suggests https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/30592/20210410/robotic-russian-tanks-deployed-near-future-despite-ukraine-war-fears.htm photo by Dmitriy Fomin is in Wikimedia Commons. I could find no such image in Commons. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of the T-62

[edit]

Should the T-62 be added back since it has seen use in the conflict in Ukraine? I think it should be noted however that they are specifically in reserve MBT's that have been bought back into service.Basedosaurus (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme inconsistency of numbers - please fix

[edit]

There are currently at least three locations with numbers for equipment in the Russian Ground Forces which are deeply inconsistent, for example

Some of this is obviously wrong (how can it be 5000 if a maximum of 1000 and probably more like 300 were produced?) but some of it seems to be copying forward Soviet numbers into Russian inventory (makes sense to say 260 reserve if, say, about 300 were produced).

It would really improve the state of the pages to work through correcting this, probably starting with the individual pages and then working up through to the summary pages. Unfortunately I have no idea where to start. The above numbers are just my understanding after reading the Pion page, I have no idea if they are right or not so I'm not going to start this.

StacksofHoy (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an (unsourced) claim of 1500 T-90 in service with the Russian army, while in the same column, it is stated Russia has only 350. 212.86.49.96 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely something funny going on. I noticed that with the Tor, Buk, Kub, Osa, and Strela-10 equipment numbers, the numbers listed at the top of the webpages listed as references are consistently lower than the numbers listed in this Wikipedia article that cite those references. SunflowerShade (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BMD-4M and other BMD are missing

[edit]

I noticed there is no mention of BMD-4M and other BMDs. Only BMPs. Can someone please add them? 98.14.201.76 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The T-90M loss rate.

[edit]

I noticed that the T-90M has 29 lost, is there any proof of this number? Photo evidence only shows a total of two T-90Ms lost in Ukraine, one destroyed in March, and one captured in September. I suggest, until this number is backed with real evidence, it is changed to two lost in Ukraine. SirCantDecide (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 is the total number of t-90/90A/90M lost, not just 90M. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing common artillery piece

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_towed_gun-howitzer_M1955_(D-20) 198.252.15.212 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add it if you have sources. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add images of Shahed 136 drone

[edit]

Are we able to add public domain copyright images for the Shahed 136 "kamikaze drones" and for the article, respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edskiash (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oryx is no relible source

[edit]

the mention of losses should be removed until the conflict is over and we get acctual real data. furthermore why are Geran drones listed as Iranian ? according to all official information these are russian made. neither iran is claiming thats their product , at best leave the mention of accusations , but the Flag should be changed to russian. 2001:9E8:2340:D700:54D2:488D:9E98:2CB3 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Gerans" are licensed made Shaheds. Licensed production would still have them listed under Iranian origin. 2601:18C:8C01:B10:ADCE:95D3:C3F2:3C (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, the Harrier AV-8B should be exclusively put under a British flag, since it's an original UK design. Right?
Topic author have my full support regarding this issue. Please update that info if it's not. 139.47.80.100 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian losses of equipment in Ukraine

[edit]

Heavy bias in the sources. Only one reference (Oryx) for almost all of the reportes losses. 186.154.114.124 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is very unreliable, to say the least. More a propaganda site than actual informative and objective. I suggest to search for other, more trusted sites, if we want to comply with Wikipedia standards. 139.47.80.100 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no better site. All losses claimed by Oryx are backed up with photographic evidence. 176.10.187.200 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oryx includes most losses, but the identification as russian or ukrainian is not objective, and has no methodology behind it.
Usage of Oryx as a source is not ideal. Franfran2424 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly why is this even in the details. Shouldn't any details be about the equipment itself, number produced, problems with it idk. What other military equipment has a list of how many were lost in a specific conflict? Gabecube45 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a serious update

[edit]

Military balance 2023 is published several days ago. Although it is not perfect, it is much closer to reality than last year's report (which most of the numbers here are based on. ) Russia doesn't have 10 000 tank reserves or 130 t14 armata tanks. This numbers are either outdated or without a source. It should be updated as soon as possible. This is almost Russia's propoganda page. 46.230.131.153 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ARES":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAF pistol? Clarification needed.

[edit]

What that mean? "Navy AirForce" pistol? "National Armed Forces" pistol? I searched the web looking for an answer but it's very unclear. Please update. 139.47.80.100 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

[edit]

add the Lebedev pistol

ПЛК21 Matias Solimo Grobnick (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 16:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T-14

[edit]

Its may and we still haven't seen the thing. Is it time to update the details section?©Geni (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

[edit]

Adding the BMD vehicles. For some reason there even is a source about them so they probably have been taken out which needs to be fixed since Russia till uses them. Slimebor (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

[edit]

Vehicles -> Miltary engineering: table entry for PBU-100 Drilling vehicle has a syntax error (line 1668). "we|[[File:Army2016-354.jpg|170px]]" should have the leading "we|" removed. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but another problem with that entry has been introduced.
It was:
|-
|[[PBU-100]]
we|[[File:Army2016-354.jpg|170px]]
|[[Drilling rig|Drilling vehicle]]
|''Unknown''
|{{RUS}}
|
Now it is:
|-
|[[PBU-100]]
 
|[[File:Army2016-354.jpg|170px]]
|[[Drilling rig|Drilling vehicle]]
{{RUS}}
|
A blank line was added, but the bigger problem is the removal of the |''Unknown'' line. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep losses in the list?

[edit]

Should the losses of the different vehicles be kept in the list? In the Ukrainian list, that's not the case either. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pro ukrainians writing here need to keep the narrative that only russia loses equipments. They don't even use their only-favorite-pro-Ukrainian source Oryx to count Ukraine's losses. All articles related to the war are so heavily biased that it should not be called Wikipedia but Ukropedia or Oryxpedia. 186.28.0.28 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's gonna take about 10 years after the war ends for Wikipedia to even remotely resemble a usable, reasonable source of information on anything relating to this war. Arguing here is a fool's errand, trust me, I tried. It has simply become a NATO fan club. They actually used to have an entire article called "Mariupol Massacre," with 20,000 as the number of "massacred" civilians. I still keep a screen shot of it (and other blunders) for posterity. 93.86.252.166 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with keeping Russian losses? No-one is obliged to record Ukrainian losses. You can add them if you want to. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that they are so inaccurate that it would only make sense to list them after the war. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oryx is more likely to undercount than anything. Do you think it's more accurate to pretend that Russia still has all that equipment? Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these losses are real, but I just wanted it more organized Onesgje9g334 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "more organized". Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia equipment

[edit]

You need to update this again because of Ukraine counteroffensive Zoomdiepie (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly should be adjusted? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

[edit]

In the Rocket artillery table of the Artillery section, the "Tornado-S" (description: "9A52-4 Tornado is a lighter more mobile variant of the Tornado-S launcher. ") should be relabeled to just "Tornado". In other words, the last four rows in the table should be:

  • BM-30 Smerch/Tornado-S
  • Tornado
  • Tornado-G
  • Uragan-1M

There seems to be some confusion/debate on whether the Tornado-S (AKA 9A54 launcher vehicle) - which was introduced later than the Tornado (AKA 9A52-4 launcher vehicle) - is a larger variant of the Tornado or a modernized variant of the BM-30 Smerch (9A52-2 launcher vehicle). Either way, the model currently labeled "Tornado-S" should be changed to "Tornado". - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 00:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btr 82 missing

[edit]

According to russian Wiki there are 1520 btr82a 2A02:3038:608:A2ED:EB70:A14A:A6BF:7118 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

[edit]

Add the BMD series. In the references you can even see that bmds used to be here on this list. After all, Russia has them and uses them 85.254.74.106 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

[edit]

Request to add Predel-E to the Special military equipment section of the Vehicles table, probably amongst the other radars. We know next to nothing about this system, some sources say it has been around since 2017, some say this was a one-of-a-kind prototype. 

|-
|[[Predel-E]]
|
|Coastal defence radar
|''Unknown''
|{{RUS}}
|As of 29 August 2023 at least 1 has been lost in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.<ref>{{cite web |last=Cook |first=Ellie |date=2023-08-29 |title='Exotic' Russian radar system worth $200M destroyed in HIMARS strike: Video |url=https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-predel-e-radar-kherson-counteroffensive-video-1822959 |access-date=2023-08-30 |website=Newsweek |language=en}}</ref>

- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mr. Komori (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

[edit]

Mosin-Nagant still in use with Russian forces? According to reliable sources that claim they also need tampon? Because they don't have enough bandages? But have enough for Ukraine POW?

Article written in 2022. But retrieved on July 2023?

I requested to change this weapon is use to ceremony purposes. Or just remove it from the list. I don't think the citation quoted here is reliable information.

2401:D800:240:DD11:10B0:1A74:280C:670D (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The use of Mosins have been documented by credible sources in use with the DPR and LPR forces, which are now the 1st and 2nd Corps of the Russian Army: https://armamentresearch.com/ares-research-report-no-3-raising-red-flags-an-examination-of-arms-munitions-in-the-ongoing-conflict-in-ukraine-2014/
https://www.reuters.com/world/conscripts-sent-fight-by-pro-russia-donbas-get-little-training-old-rifles-poor-2022-04-04/ If you think FP is not an reliable source, you'd better off discussing at the RS Noticeboard.

Mosin-Nagant incorrectly listed

[edit]

If you follow the source cited, it incorrectly cited a wall street journal article which describes the mosin as being issued to DNR and LNR soldiers which at the top of the article says should be listed separately.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putins-risky-escalation-might-not-reverse-russias-battlefield-setbacks-in-ukraine-11663773683?st=tgkfrf0vuirn933&reflink=share_mobilewebshare 92.40.201.57 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

[edit]

Add "As of 25 January 2024 at least 3 have been lost in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine." to the details section for the ARS-14.

Reference: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/10/russias-wars-listing-equipment-losses.html CretaceousFella (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I can't seem to find text in the reference to support this claim. Please quote the sentence. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VSS not in use since ratnik

[edit]

Been in use since 1987 2603:8081:8A00:111D:2428:8D3D:7F99:CBE2 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTR-80 quantity section

[edit]

On BTR80's own page it is stated that Russia has 1500 regular models and 1200 BTR82 (infantry fighting vehicle) models. The quantity box only says that there are 1500 btr-80s. I think it should talk about both types of BTR80's Slimebor (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loss numbers for most types are now four months out of date

[edit]

in addition the numbers of T-72's and T-80's in storage are from pre-war military balance figures which were never verified by the military balance and which have now been adjusted based on the osint work of covert cabal and himarsed Sublight Products (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated losses from Oryx, you are welcome to do so in future. I don't think we can update storage numbers as they're based on satellite imagery and likely to be inaccurate. Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. You have The Military Balance numbers, which is the same source as was used for the 2021 numbers that figure in the article. But for some reason nobody updates this article with TMB2024 numbers. 66.81.171.54 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better or more source needed than just a single source for current Russian losses

[edit]

Military Balance 2023 for example. Oryx is not 100% true and their supposed photographic evidence can be easily manipulated. Both side use the same tanks and vehicles, which makes hardly recognizable destroyed vehicles even harder to be recognized which side using it, and oryx often attribute unrecognizable losses as Russians losses. Also some of their "evidence" also include telegram text that supposedly claimed losses of either sides, and sometime visually damaged vehicle are sometime counted as full destruction. Even in the past wikipedia consider oryx as unreliable source, become reliable overnight only because a lot of mainstream media using it (and other exaggerating or sensationalist or nonsensical news report because they were published by what wikipedia considered reliable media source, for example, Forbes, Newsweek, and some other). At best, using only military balance 2023 as source for current Russian military stockpile just like in some Russian equipment list and using oryx only when no other source can be used to estimate other kind of Russian equipment. Dauzlee (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Balance is an annual publication. Oryx is updated every few days. The fact that numerous other publications rely on Oryx data means it is a WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IISS military balance 2024 is already published, it should use that now. Ukrainian current equipment list are using military balance instead of Oryx, even though oryx also have section for Ukrainian losses, Russia should have used it too, with the exemption of equipment that is not covered by military balance, which oryx could have been used. Even if wikipedia insist that oryx is a reliable source, at least someone carefully analyze their claim and the supposed evidence and properly summarize it on wiki instead of just parroting it. Dauzlee (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't change the fact that Military Balance is an annual publication, so will already be weeks out of date by the time of publication, while Russia is losing equipment daily. Mztourist (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist Are these publications that say Russia has run out of ammunition, men, equipment, etc. every few months or so ? 77.97.203.220 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oryx only covers equipment losses, it doesn't cover anything else. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment (and it is a substantial number) losses without established owner are kept off both Russian and Ukrainian Oryx loss lists. If you dont have any clue about the (repeatedly explained) methodology Oryx has been using, you should do better research. Rebell44 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Bulsae 4 M-2018 be added?

[edit]

Hi I am just posting this to ask if it possible to add (and if we should) the Bulsae-4 ATGM system which has been tentatively identified in Ukraine in use by Russian Forces. Russian Forces have not acknowledged using it. I cannot edit the article.

Sources: https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2024/north-korean-bulsae-4-missile-system-reportedly-spotted-in-ukraine-for-first-time https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/30/in-a-possible-major-escalation-it-seems-russia-is-getting-anti-tank-missile-vehicles-from-north-korea/ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/bulsae-4.htm https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/russia-starts-using-north-korean-bulsae-4-missile-system-against-ukraine-media/ar-BB1qVe5v https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrlPvTJltJk

Thanks Rajbarage (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would wait for more evidence of their use. As for sources, Forbes is fine, but most of the other sources are deprecated: WP:ARMYRECOGNITION, WP:GLOBALSECURITY, WP:RSPYT. Mr. Komori (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I was mainly looking at videos to deduce what it was when the news came out. It took a while for me to realise it wasn't a previously used system. As for the youtube video, the youtuber himself is generally very good and what he says makes sense and adds up. For this type of stuff, what type of evidence would we have to wait for to add the system? Rajbarage (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say until there's more evidence other than low quality photos and speculation. Mr. Komori (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity updated to Military Balance 2024 figures

[edit]

User:Musketeiro8 I see that you have updated the Quantity column based on the Military Balance 2024 figures. While Military Balance is WP:RS, I think the change creates confusion when read alongside the Details column which set out the details of equipment reactivated and Oryx confirmed losses. The opening wording of the page states that these are "Estimated list of the equipment of the Russian Ground Forces in service as of 2022. Note that due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine quantities of operational equipment are highly uncertain." Accordingly I have reverted the Quantities to the 2022 figures and expanded the opening wording for clarity. Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a rather strange approach to article editing. At what point do you suggest we stop listing the 2022 numbers in the Quantity column and actually update it? We already have an RS that shows different numbers. Perhaps, it makes sense to split the article into the List of equipment of the Pre-2022 Invasion Russian Ground Forces (that would list MB2022 numbers) and the List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces (which would use the latest RS available)? Vgbyp (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not strange at all, the introductory wording stated that it was at 2022. I would be fine with the split approach you propose. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The Military Balance 2024 edition is far more recent than the 2022 edition. I don't see any reason why this page should continue reflecting the 2022 figures. If you think the change creates confusion when combined with the information in the details column, perhaps we should rewrite the details column instead of continuing with the MB 2022 figures? Musketeiro8 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is as at 2022, so the Quantity column shows 2022 quantities, while the Details column lists reactivated and lost equipment. If the 2024 Military balance figures are listed then those presumably already take into account many of the losses in Ukraine. I'm fine with the split approach proposed by Vgbyp as that will preserve some clarity. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page should reflect the most recent data available. I don't think having the MB2024 and the Oryx/reactivation data together takes away any clarity. That said, an alternative to the split approach would be to omit the losses for each type of equipment as is done in the Ukrainian equipment list page which was updated to the MB2024 a long time ago. Musketeiro8 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Oryx is WP:RS and I do not agree to all the loss data being deleted as that would mean that the page isn't updated except annually. Split approach is best Mztourist (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist Russian military didn't have any T-62s in service in 2022, they were in reserve. Also declaring intention of restoring 800 T-62s doesn't mean they instantly all became operational. 78.30.67.63 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and other new systems have entered service since 2022. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept up to date where possible, we should not be constrained by the lead section (which can easily be changed). And as @Musketeiro8 said, using MB2024 does not take away any clarity. The Russian Wikipedia article also uses MB2024 for example. Alin2808 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just using MB 2004 creates confusion as it already includes some of the losses covered in the Details column. Mztourist (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really does not. The details column only provides details, the important numbers are those in the list itself. Alin2808 (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since @Mztourist seems to be the only one who wishes to keep the outdated 2022 numbers, I restored the updated 2024 numbers while also editing the lead section to reflect that. This article is not about 2022 data, it is about the most recent data, discussion here should continue about what to do with the detailed losses, but the numbers should remain up to date. Alin2808 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to keep the current numbers updated per MB2024, just like the Ukrainian Armed Forces equipment page. As for losses, personally I recommend removing per WP:WHENTABLE: "Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries. (...)". Mr. Komori (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Perhaps there could be a separate "List of vehicle (or ground forces equipment losses?) losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War"? Like how there already is a List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and a List of ship losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Alin2808 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page with pre-Feb 2022 data could be moved to List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces 2022 if that was thought notable. At this current title, it should be updated with the 2024 MB information. Undated pages are generally expected, on this beat, to be current. A List of ground forces losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War would be valuable. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a 2022 Russian equipment list as notable. People usually expect to see the current equipment of an Army, not the equipment in just a particular year. A list of ground losses in the Russo-Ukrainian War would be much better suited for a dedicated article. The list would also complete the aircraft and ship losses (linked above). Alin2808 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads almost like a propaganda piece

[edit]

The vehicles section of this article does not look like an encyclopedic article, especially considering that the two main sources being used, Oryx and International Institute for Strategic Studies are heavily biased. It is better to remove that kind of information and create a separate piece for that combining both pro-NATO and pro-Russian sources, or better just wait until the dust settles. Even for World War 2, historians had to dig hard to get something closer to the truth because of the excessive propaganda on both sides. AClassId (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Oryx or IISS are biased one way or another in their military losses and equipment counts. That doesn't mean that they are 100% accurate, I just mean that there is no 'propaganda bias'. The WW2 comparison isn't apt at all since the situation with OSINT opportunities was vastly different at that time. Vgbyp (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very curious about what basis you have AClassId for saying the IISS is "heavily biased." It is usually considered a reliable source. Have you taken the IISS Military Balance to WP:RSN? They are the designated point for questioning reliability of sources.. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

[edit]

The equipment numbers are completely unrealistic and without a reliable source, most sources available on the web give completely different numbers, such as global firepower, the most reliable website when it comes to military matters, an example are the T-72s that Russia had more than 7,000 before the war, despite the losses, saying that Russia has 950 T-72s is comical to say the least. Borges777 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces&oldid=1255837925"