Jump to content

Talk:BTR-80

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

I added some newer variants of the BTR-80, including the ones based on the bigger K1Sh1. Also, I made a brake-up of all the countries to give a better overview. dendirrek 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used in combat, by Colombia

[edit]

Colombia has this armoured vehicle, for many years.I has being used in combat, with total sucess, by colombian army.This video: [[1]] shows the production and using of this armoured anphibious vehicle by Colombia.Agre22 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

This article is biased and needs attention.

[edit]

And I quote: 

The BTR-80 
surpasses its foreign counterparts in the following areas:

- the ports for small arms fire by the infantry men are better arranged, adding to the APC's fire potential. The seven ports on its sides are turned forward, with one positioned in the hull front (straight ahead) and two on the roof (the latter allow for fire at high-set targets). Two ports enable machine gun fire;

- the ports are equipped with spherical bearings that enable firing from inside the vehicle without depressurizing the fighting compartment even on contaminated terrain, as the filter-ventilation unit supplies purified air inside the APC;

- the front projection of the APC hull ensures protection of the infantry men from 7.62-mm assault rifle and also 12.7-mm machine gun fire;

- the APC is equipped with an anti-roll-down mechanism, which prevents the rolling down of the APC, when it comes to a halt or starts moving on grades, and facilitates the driver's actions in mountainous areas;

- the APC can negotiate water barriers in its stride without any preliminary preparation. Owing to its water jet propulsion system, the APC can move easily across shallow waters and overgrown water bodies as it is not damaged in this case. The armored personnel carrier can be transported by any means of ground, sea or air transport

This does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also this article should be broken up between the BTR's weapons, armor, and mobility systems.


One giant capabilities section does not seem appropriate to me. Also a history section seems appropriate to such a historical weapon. The Ukearchy (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Large parts of the article read like a press release from the manufacturer. Blackeagle (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. "The front projection of the APC hull ensures protection of the infantry men from 7.62-mm assault rifle and also 12.7-mm machine gun fire"; this is a very nice way to say (or if you like, avoid saying) that you can actually penetrate the sides of this vehicle with common 7.62-mm machine gun fire. This makes the BTR-80 very vulnerable compared to other modern APCs and IFVs.
Oh, YES! "very vulnerable"! What are you comp.? Modern APCs and model of 1980 y.? (Delta=30 years!) Lets try to compare Wright brothers' plane and F-35 Lightning II! What is "very vulnerable" in this case? --= APh =-- (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as counterparts go, for example, the significantly more "modern" American Stryker APC is listed for it's armor protection as being "resistant" 7.62 mm/14.5 mm rounds, and the Canadian LAV-III is even worse, needing add on ceramic armor upgrades to handle 14.5 mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.17.105 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it amphibious?

[edit]

Is it amphibious? Because in the text it doesn't say so, but there is a picture of this vehicle swimming. Thank you. GastonSenac (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the picture does not lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran?

[edit]

This article lists Iran as one of the users of the BTR-80. However, it is not listed under the Equipment of the Iranian Army article, only the BTR-50 and BTR-60. Which is correct? Wolcott (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

armor?

[edit]

Hi guys,

I had to look up what "classified" means, I mean okay in the 2nd WW it was maybe a secret how many mm the armor of new german tanks (Tiger, Panther, Königstiger and their tank destroyer derivates) but only until one has been destroyed and couldn't be evacuated by the German forces. Same with the horsepower of new german or japanese aircrafts, but are there really no information about the armor of a vehicle that is in service since 1986, so 26-27 years?! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured vehicles are high value assets which rely on armour; if adversaries knew how easy it was to defeat some piece of armour, that would give current or near-future adversaries a big advantage. So, most governments will want to keep this information out of the public's hands, except to the extent that governments want to boast about how they have even better tanks.
As an aside, it really irritates me that "classified" is commonly used as a synonym for "secret" in English. Classified should just mean that a piece of information has been given a classification on a scale that ranges somewhere between "it's public knowledge already, we can tell anybody" and "Super-duper-secret, disclosure would cause the downfall of the state / business / civilisation". There are lots of different classifications at different points on that spectrum. bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motorisation

[edit]

Hi guys,

I hope you know that 190 kW are not 260 hp! ;) 190 kW are even not 260 (german) "Pferdestärke" (Pferd = Horse). 1 hp is 0,986320 PS or 0,745700 kW. Now we come to get problem ;)

190 kW are

258,33 PS - or - 254,79 hp

254,79 can be rounded up to 255 and 255 to 260... but is it really correct and wouldn't a more accurate information be better? Even in the german case I would be against the 260 PS-Version, although it is much closer than in the horsepower (hp) scenario.

Maybe 255 hp should be mentioned and if you take 13.6 tonnes and 190 kW:

190 / 13.6 = 13.970588235294117647058823529412

13.97 kW/tonne (or how you spell tons?) would be a number which would be correct in every way, and I don't know about English Wikipedia rules but for motorisation of planes, tanks, transporters/trucks, especially older ones I can remember that I saw the kW per tonne variant more than just once... it is the best way to compare the kw/t from Nazi-Germany Tanks with Allied or Soviet tanks, the kW is everywhere the same ;) Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
What number do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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/btr80/
    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 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BTR-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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BTR-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BTR-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BTR-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on BTR-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward & Unclear Language

[edit]

The sections that describe the features and capabilities of this vehicle include a lot of sentences that reference ‘the Soviets’. e.g, “the Soviets redesigned...”, “the Soviets added...”, “the Soviets modified....” which makes it sound like it was designed by another country and ‘the Soviets’ just tweaked it and adjusted elements to suit their needs, when in fact the vehicle was wholly designed and built in the Soviet Union.

Plus, the overuse of ‘the Soviets’ is rather jarring and makes for awkward reading. Imagine an article about, say, the Centurion tank that is littered with “the British decided...”, “the British rebuilt...”, “the British commissioned...” etc. It just sounds clumsy, not to mention the needless redundancy.

Anyway, that jumped out at me right away when reading the article. User2346 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern quantity

[edit]

There is a need to upgrade the numbers about how much those countries have btrs in their equipment 185.139.124.72 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:BTR-80&oldid=1257876218"