Talk:List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Difference in presentation between Ukrainian and Russian armed forces

How comes there is such a huge difference between what is said about Russian artilery or tanks, and Ukrainian ones? There is no equal treatement at all. With the russians, it's constantly and consistently always mentioned that they "had" so and so many tanks, and that "at least" so many have been lost in the War against Ukraine. In reverse, however, there is not mentioned one iota of how many tanks and artillery Ukraine lost. The only thing it speaks of, is how many it gets from the West.

Why this discrepancy? If wikipedia pertains to be neutral and equally fair in its data, there should either be no mention of lost vehicles, or it should be mentioned with both. Now, one can't but have the impression there is some definite bias in the wiki-articles. Losses are consistently mentioned with Russian armed vehicles, but not with Ukranian ones. Even a blind person couldn't fail to see this.

Current equipment

I do not understand why the article is plagued of cases whit "0" units or with "?" units, talking about models that are not in service, about future contracts or about the exports of the country. Many comments are not related with the issue (current equipment) or are not real now (future things). All it makes the info a lot more obscure to follow. Also according to sources like globalsecurity, the figures for tanks agree more with the data for 2010 than for 2014.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-equipment.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.204.127 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason for all of the question marks has a number of roots. The first is a lingering culture of military secrecy which means that few outside of the Army know what is in use where. The second reason is corruption-over the past decade many pieces of equipment have been sold off illicitly from storage yards and naturally those responsible want to cover it up. Consequently it can be very hard to get a good picture of what equipment is in use, what's been renovated and what remains in storage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.68.50 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Ukraine at the time of writing this message is currently being invaded, I recommend locking this article down since the conflict will make the current number of their equipment outdated.

Unfortunately, this article has gotten completely out of hand. They indiscriminately included all infantry equipment, and some Russian heavy equipment justifying it as captured, without adding any valid citation. Emersonlima82 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

See "suspect referencing" below. The editor has been handled in an ad-hoc manner a few times. 501 edits on this article (I think not all are bogus). Trigenibinion (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

checkY Done. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian SSR/Russian SFSR flags

The division of USSR military production by republic flags (Ukrainian SSR/Russian SFSR) is meaningless and distorts reality. USSR had a single union-level military–industrial complex, which was ruled directly by Government of the Soviet Union. The republics governments were unable to order or control military production. All Soviet military production had only Made in USSR label. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

List exploding in size with no sourcing

Since February 1, the number of small arms listed here has grown from 23 to 44. Most of these additions were justified solely by statements that the weapons had been "seen"; literally only one of the twenty-one additions was accompanied by a citation. The article also seems to have acquired a WP:OWNER in @Lucas Cavalcante Mesquita:, who's contributed a significant number of the new additions, reverted attempts by others to cull the list, yet never edited any other article on Wikipedia.

I recognize that it's hard to meet the standards of WP:RELIABLE given how quickly things are changing, but we should make at least *some* attempt, in my opinion.

Stephen Hui (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I added source for C90 and M240, the only weapons I added in the list. Some editors are randomly deleting content, and I'm recovering them. Next time I'll add the citations. Lucas Cavalcante Mesquita (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Miscapitalisation

a lot of the links on here are 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine rather than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I've been fixing this on a few other pages, but there's quite a few on here so I'll come back soon (my apologies if I forget)

– DirkJandeGeer щи 10:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

oryx

this is just a blog with no evidence given for it's claims, it is NOT a reliable source as per WP:RS and i will continue to remove it's content until an actual, real, reliable source is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.195.97 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

First welcome new user that already knows alot about Wikipedia policies. If it is so unreliable source them why is it used by several news media like the brazilian Veja, spanish El País, french France 24, british Financial Times, The Independent, The Economist and The Guardian or the americans Wall Street Journal or Forbes? What do you consider "an actual, real, reliable source"? The likes of mouthpieces RT, Ruptly or Sputnik? Tm (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Spanish El Pais, about the russian losses on the present war of agression against ukraine, it says that "Oryx Blog es solo un ejemplo de la explosión de fuentes fiables de inteligencia de fuentes abiertas (OSINT en sus célebres siglas en inglés)" or "Oryx blig is just one example of the explosion of reliable sources of open source intelligence". Tm (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Forbes says "Oryx blog, a leading source of open-source intelligence". Tm (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? LOOK AT ORYX SITE!!! It has outright blatant Nato/Ukraine propaganda all over it. You might as well go ask Stalin for casualty figures for Ukraine. Also, more damning? Oryx has already repeatedly been debunked for using photos that are either photoshopped or physically painted on, Ukraine vehicles made to look Russian. Except they mostly do it in massmedia "believable" instead of actually trying to mimic REAL Russian practises. No, they do not write "Russian airforce" on helicopters, no they do not put text on tanks like lots of photos include.
And even more damning, Russia obviously has not lost all or most of its tanks in Ukraine, yet according to Oryx, they should have. Including lots of tanks and other vehicles that Russia as far as anyone can tell, isn't using at all.
This happened again the other day, Ukraine released "information" about failed Russian rivercrossing. Except the pictures have now been clearly shown to display TWO different crossing attempts, one Russian and one Ukrainian almost at the same time at another part of the same river. And Ukraine tried to claim everything was destroyed and everything was Russian.
Yet it includes BMP-1s(among other things) that Russia doesn't have in the area, and it was also later shown that some of the "destroyed" vehicles were not. 100 BTGs, 1000 tanks. Oryx currently says Russia has lost 675 tanks. If that had even the slightest truth, they would currently be rotating units out to reequip. They're not doing that AT ALL. And everything at least i can find, is that the vast majority of those BTGs have not lost more than 1 platoon of tanks, most less than that and only a few have taken severe tank losses. Also, majority of lost tanks have been replaced by captured Ukraine tanks. Oryx says 675, reality says, well probably less than 150 at least, and definitely not over 300, otherwise they would be reequipping units. Dreizinreport recently upgraded his estimate about losses to 4:1 in Russian advantage, Scott Ritter, who doesn't look at exact same stuff, upgraded his estimate to 7:1. BBC Russia recently found that they could verify a bit over 2100 Russian casualties(behind in time, but probably not hugely so). While a recent report stated that Ukraine's total losses to date is likely around 50000... Does that work with literally almost ANYTHING stated on the pages about the war? Hah! DW75 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Stop removing content. If you have a problem with Oryx, fine, but the majority of the editors see as a reliable source, you're the only one who came up with this. By the way, T-90 was taken by Ukrainian forces and there's plenty of pictures showing them in service in UA side, and you still removing them. On Twitter theres a profile called "Ukrainian Weapons Tracker" where all equipment captured by both sides (or most of them that someone took a picture) are shown. Or you don't belive in pictures too? So please, stop. Lucas Cavalcante Mesquita (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
How does it make any sense including captured equipment during the war as a part of the equipment inventory unless it can be shown that those units that were captured are in the active service of the Ground Forces? 76.105.136.40 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily need to be in active service with Ground Forces.That is shown through out the page with items like the BRDM-1 which according to the page are all stored. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
As we have seen from footage coming out of Ukraine there is a massive amount of Russian equipment being captured by Ukraine and then some being seen used against Russia. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
No there isn't. There's a lot of CLAIMS about it, yet the Ukraine forces are mostly driving civillian cars, if they're driving ANYTHING, while Russian forces are not noticeably depleted in vehicles. 100 BTGs invaded, that's 1000 tanks, if Oryx had even the slightest shred of reality to it, Russia would have had to essentially completely replace its ENTIRE TANK FORCE!!! It has not done so. It has not even rotated troops out for any longer R&R. The troops from the Kiev maneuver were moved and went back in action within close to minimal realistic timeframe, meaning that they simply could not have taken the losses claimed, otherwise they would have needed at least a few days, more likely a week or two to reequip.
Also, very notably, when BBC Russia recently investigated losses, they found a bit over 2100. Their method was extremely reliable, because either they were likely to find nothing, if Russia was keeping losses completely secret, or they would find all or most(though likely with a notable lag in time), because there's absolutely no reason to release SOME losses internally but not all. Again, massive discrepancy compared to claimed Russian losses. BUT, perfectly in line with actual Russian behaviour as well as their public statements. And it's not like Ukraine has released ANYTHING so far that was actually 100% true. And in Washington, they outright stated weeks ago that "yup, we lie to the media"(~"release low confidence information to preempt Russia"). DW75 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No TB2 Bayraktar?

Ukraine has made extensive use of Bayraktar UAVs but they are not listed under the UAV and autonomous vehicles section 2600:6C56:6900:796:AC84:3365:76DE:FE13 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's part of the Air Force. Mindaur (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces

Perhaps I'm too nitpicky, but I believe the list should be checked for sources - some of the equipment listed is either:
a) actually used by other organizations than UGF (such as Ukrainian Navy, National Guard - which in Ukraine is not a reserve component of the army, but an armed security org - more like gendarmerie - even though subordinated to the armed forces in time of war, and we have a separate list of equipment for UNG, or even the Police) or
b) not quite supported by the reference given - e.g. the reference given for FN SCAR, FN MINIMI &c. just says "number of FN-manufactured weapons were donated" or "lots of Belgian FNs Headed to Ukraine", and then lists some of the types produced by said firm, but without expressly stating those were included. (I have been able to find an independent source for FN FNCs, and MINIMIs, I think, but not for the FN-SCAR.)

I know this is definitely not the most pressing problem at the moment (well, I have, from other IP, added some of similar not quite impeccable sources, too), but someone should keep this in mind and check the sources if / when possible. Thanks ---90.182.62.178 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles on military equipment generally tend to suffer from these problems: the mixed different branches of the armed forces and there is a lot of unsourced material. Sometimes also excessive and unnecessary details. My suggestions:
  • I would suggest to rename the article to be the list covering the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Often there are not enough sources to do it properly figure out the branches and there is little value in that anyway. You can always add a note in the details section or make footnotes, e.g. "This equipment is only used by the Air Force" or so.
  • As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy, I think we should focus on the essential equipment, without attempting to list every different model of helmets or tractors, or to count every tank and at what time it was produced. For example, the detail sections on the T-64/T-72/T-80 tanks in this article are too excessive.
  • Try to add sources, but don't blanket-remove unsourced material. If items seems plausible, then keep it. If it seems controversial, then search for sources attempting to verify it and if you can't find any -- remove.
Use WP:COMMONSENSE. Mindaur (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Number of T-64s

The number in the table for T-64BV is ~1,000/1200 (the same number was also before the Russian military operation, so recent donations can't be explanation). The details say: "Ukraine began 2014 with 83 BMs' and 700 BVs. In 2018, 300 T-64 were reported destroyed during the War in Donbas." I can't possibly understand how they can have 700 BVs in 2014, have a lot of them destroyed during the War in Donbas and end up with more tanks than in 2014. Additional note: some of the old BVs were upgraded, but those are not completely new tanks, so no change in the final number. StjepanHR (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Privately owned weapons by citizens of Ukraine

The KRISS Vector and Beretta Mx4 Storm should not be on this list as they are not owned by Ukraine. I also saw a Remington ACR on Reddit https://i.redd.it/745eo5iziml81.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReddishCat (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"War Prey"

I changed "War Prey" (used for designating captured enemy equipment) to "War prize" - English is not my first language, but I consider it terminologically better in this sense, while "War Prey" does not really sounds that English. -2A00:1028:83BE:91A2:CDF4:BE6A:79E6:DFCF (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

GMZ-1

The 'Engineering vehicles' section listed a "GMZ-1", with a piped link to GM chassis. GMZ is the Russian abbreviation for 'Tracked Minelayer' = "Gusenichnyi minnyi zagraditel" (Гусеничный минный заградитель) and does not relate to the GM chassis, the GM there stands for "Gusenichnaya Mashina" (tracked vehicle). But I don't think this is likely to be a GMZ-1. The Soviet-era GMZs were built since the late 1960s (ru:ГМЗ) - and I don't know they they had the GMZ-1 designation at the time but this may have been retrospectively applied. They were replaced by the GMZ-2s (ru:ГМЗ-2) in the 1970s, and they in turn by the GMZ-3s in the 1980s. The picture in the article currently is that of a GMZ-3. The Ukrainian military has themselves stated they operate the GMZ-3 [1] so I've changed the name and linked it to the GMZ-3. Just in case anyone wondered why I made this edit. Spokoyni (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

min-width

min-width is a solution to the impossibility of fitting comfortably some tables on a small screen, they should not have been removed but adjusted to a lower value. For example, if everything is set to 10em, it should be no problem. I mostly optimized it so that the notes are not higher than the photos, but acknowledged some might not be good on small devices. Someone mentioned it was not good on their laptop (I imagine they don't want to scroll horizontally for some notes), it would be interesting to what a nice value would be for them, even if it would have to be made smaller because of phones. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur:. Per discussion on my talk page, I believe the correct way to format the tables is by removing all of the hundreds of nowrap templates, and using min-width and max-width intelligently once per table. This should satisfy people with wide and narrow screen resolutions, and makes the page tremendously easier to maintain. (Hohum @) 14:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I think couple min-width cases would be fine, if properly tested, but I would rather trim the excessively long details in the sections about the tanks: it really doesn't matter when and what factory handed over 3 (!) tanks, such detail is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see my general comment above). That would also fix the problematic tables. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Almost every table needs at least small min-width for the notes column, or it is absolutely terrible on phones. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
nowrap is how many tables on wikipedia are formatted, just setting one per column instead of a width, I have removed some where this consumed too much space for other columns (eg: long airport names). I was also showing on the sniper table how to avoid bad alignment of long country names and flags so that nowraps can be removed in this case (ideally this would simply be implemented inside the flag template). Nowrap is also the way to avoid weird splitting of phrases, as it has been used here too. With respect to the laptop issue, I tested now in 1080p and it was enough to use 50em on the tank table and 60em on the IFV table to avoid having to scroll. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the indiscriminate content needing to go. Also, over a hundred citation need tags? How about delete all that content and add it when there is an actual reliable source.
However, back on topic. "Other pages do it" is not an argument.
Here are the problems it causes, you need to address them or stop reverting every change that removes nowrap tags.
It is a nightmare to maintain a page with hundreds of nowrap tags on it. They aren't even consistently used.
Using nowrap specifically breaks the table formatting process which tries to give columns a fair width, depending on their content.
It is entirely reasonable for some contents with only a small amount of information (name, country, caliber) to be shrunk in order for other columns with large amounts of data to be big enough to comfortably read - even if this makes those shrunk columns become a little more difficult to read. See the big picture, not "Oh no, the name is split into two rows, we must keep nowrap tags to stop this!"
Using min and max width tags once per table will allow reasonable limits which should be an ideal compromise.
max-width is bad for big screen users. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not about avoiding all splitting, but preventing bad splitting. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to show how much better this would look using that method, but instantly being reverted doesn't give annyone a chance to review its functionality. Perhaps I'll create a sandbox version.
(Hohum @) 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried now Template:Flaglist with "Socialist Republic of Romania" but it did not work, I left a note on the talk page. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It is still possible to see the proposals using the history, but we need to make them easy to find in the comments. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It is better to use Template:Wbr instead of nowrap to avoid some bad splits. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

suspect referencing

For those who care about this list, perhaps some close inspection of the references in the list are in order.

For example, in this edit by Editor TheHamael, amidst apparently valid references (Jane's infantry weapons, 2009-2010), there is one about geochemical data from samples taken in Ontario, Canada; a reference to a US government OSTI site about stormwater pollution prevention; 'Screenshot of Itunes Library', 'Brücken bauen mit Liaison Nurses' (trans: 'Building bridges with Liaison Nurses'), 'Hyperreality and Global Culture'; several <something>.edu.vn cites that appear to be wikipedia clones.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't it be the Thai gun hoaxster back in action? I had no time to check all entries, just removed the most suspect I've stumbled upon. --2A00:1028:83BE:91A2:F460:1466:E042:7664 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

AT4 misplaced

AT4 should be under recoilless rifles. It is not a rocket-propelled grenade system.Wolf359Locutus (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Weapon origin

An editor is imposing their narrow view on weapon origin, even when export is restricted because of where a component is made. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Also making bogus "original research" claims when the source of the components have been documented. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
So someone has to understand this is not origin of components, vehicle base, license, where it was manufactured or where it was exported (!?) from. For example can German tank used by Poland became German-Swedish or Polish because they added Swedih engine? Sounds like joke right? What are we doing here? Eurohunter (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
If the only version covered in the row is the one with the Swedish engine, the flag should be there. The Polish flag would only belong there is the mod was done in Poland. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: No sense same as British actors not make American film British or Swedish video game engine used in German game not make it Swedish game or Swedish song of Swedish artist produced by French producer not make it French song or British Formula One car isn't German because it has Mercedes engine etc. etc. Also if Swedish singer recorded song in English this is still Swedish song, Swedish song sang in English Eurohunter (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
And I thought car analogies were the worst, maybe you should stick to editing music articles. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: I just pointed examples how bad idea is to say something is German because it has German component (where is the logic?!). Will you count countires of all the componets? This is crazy then. Eurohunter (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm for counting all significant content that can impose export restrictions. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: Why just not add it to note? Eurohunter (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Because if something is designed in, made in, based on, it also has that nationality. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: So If one day new German tank would be produced in New Zealand would you gave it German and New Zealand flag? Don't you see you mix few vectors into one thing called more of less "nationality"? Then what is what? How readers know it's German tank manufactured in New Zealand or vice versa? That's ridicolous. You can add it to notes but don't mix things. Eurohunter (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If the row is only about German-designed tanks made in NZ, it should also have the NZ flag. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Basedosaurus: No. It doesn't matter who gave what name or where it was modernised or manufactured. If you want to mention Netherlands add it to notes with references and who will fix that link to YPR-765? Eurohunter (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Now it's 2 against 1. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: Since when the more = the right? Eurohunter (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That is how Wikipedia works, most of the time it was used against me. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: I can find 2 more so it's 3 against 2. What now? What are we doing here? Eurohunter (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Counting. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Answer me these two questions:
Did Netherlands produce it in very large quantities?
Is the official name of the vehicle sent by the Netherlands YPR-765?
the answer to both question is YES
EOD... Basedosaurus (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus: How American vehicle manufactured in the Netherlands became Dutch? Don't you see weirdness of it? Yes Neterlands gave own name "YPR-765" for "AIFV" and what now? It's their own name for "AIFV". What it changes? Eurohunter (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It is as Dutch as an iPhone made in China is Chinese. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I said originally that it should be Duel nation of origin.However it should still be called YPR-765 because it is there own highly modified version of what was based on the AIFV that was produced significantly domestically and was/is exclusively for the Netherlands. Basedosaurus (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: "iPhone made in China is Chinese" - no never, it's exactly opposite... American iPhone produced in People's Republic of China is American just made in People's Republic of China. Eurohunter (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It is both American and Chinese. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: Only if iPhone is Apple's & Huawei's but it isn't. iPhone isn't Chinese, just manufactured there. Eurohunter (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You're trying to redefine how international trade works. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Trigenibinion: Instead of coming up with your own interpretations, please explore other articles on the same subject and try to be WP:CONSISTENT. Generally, "origin" means the country where the designer and manufacturer is based in (rather than who exported it, where components are sourced from, where the factories are based, etc). If it's M113 platform, then it's USA. Of course, there are joint ventures, technology transfers and other more complex cases (e.g. if a particular platform was heavily modified and manufactured elsewhere, reverse engineered, etc). I don't think YPR-765 crosses the threshold of being Dutch technology (although I don't have a very strong objection to additionally include Netherlands). --Mindaur (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Other articles support my case, but maybe not some template documentation. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: Regarding M270 and other cases:

  • We discussed the origin already. There are plenty of systems which have been upgraded or co-produced by other countries, but unless it's a new platform, we don't claim a new origin and don't stick a bunch of flags. For example, M270 is listed as originated in USA by other articles: List of equipment of the British Army, List of equipment of the French Army, List of equipment of the Norwegian Army and so on. Please keep it the same here, as per WP:CONSISTENT.
  • If there is no technology transfer, then manufacturing elsewhere doesn't necessarily define the origin. Also, the use of components produced by other countries is widespread in modern economies, but it's irrelevant. Following this logic, most modern Russian missiles, aircraft and other equipment should also have the flags of USA, most certainly China/Taiwan, and likely many other countries, since they are actually full of Western electronics and components. Sometimes in an amusing way, like the Orlan-10 drone with commercially available Canon EOS (and not even high-end) cameras inside them. That doesn't make them Japanese, though.
  • There are some genuine multi-national projects, e.g. Eurofighter Typhoon, FH70, IRIS-T, etc. However, unless it's 2-3 countries, I don't think it's very helpful to stuff many countries when listing equipment. In such case, I would rather generalize it to "EU" (or "Europe"), "Multinational" or just provide the lead country where sensible (e.g. Germany is the main stakeholder of IRIS-T).

Generally, this article is a mess and needs more trimming rather than more tedious details. --Mindaur (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Eurohunter took the discussion to the military group and he was told what is meant by origin depends on context. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The M270 is listed with USA origin on its article because the documentation for the infobox template indicates that this corresponds to the main contractor, that does not apply here. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
And that is perfectly adequate, so please keep this article WP:CONSISTENT. Mindaur (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I see you did not link those guidelines because they state nothing about this case. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 19:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 21:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yall really Fu*ked up this article, didn't you?

This article became a real mess since the guy who puts random weapons and it's modernizations nomeclatures and the guy who keeps adding "paddings, specify, nowrap". What happend to the order? WTF happend to the links from Ukrainian Wikipedia witch has info that english Wikipedia don't. That is what happens when anyone can edit... It's sad. Lucas Cavalcante Mesquita (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Most nowrap have been replaced with awrap or removed. The country alignment workaround has been removed (it belongs in the flaglist code). Trigenibinion (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I fixed flaglist so that it will display the correct country name always, now the proper alignment has to be implemented. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I have implemented the workaround in the flaglist template. table=yes must be passed as a parameter when there's bad wrapping. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be said: this is also what happens when anyone can edit: concerned editors show up to rectify issues. Kudos to Trigenibinion. — MaxEnt 11:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

M270

The M270 is a multinational development from the start. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. M270 was designed and manufactured in USA. That is the origin of the system. The fact that other countries upgrade it (e.g. British put more armour around it) or, especially in this case, integrate with their domestic fire-control systems doesn't make it of European origin. We discussed this ad infinitum. Please stop stuffing unnecessary flags; they don't really add value.
P.S. Ukraine is not even going to get a real MARS II variant as sensitive elements of the fire-control and communication systems will be removed before the delivery (such modifications were made for M777 and CAESAR howitzers as well). -- Mindaur (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
"Das Artilleriesystem ist die Weiterentwicklung des Anfang der 1980er-Jahre von den Partnernationen Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA und Italien entwickelten Basissystems MLRS" [1]. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "MARS II / MLRS-E - KMW". www.kmweg.de.

Weapon type

Someone is removing all the detail from some weapon descriptions. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

We generally provide a general type/class of weapon (think of MBT, IFV, APC and other fairly standard terms, although some terminology varies). The purpose of this article is to provide a general list of capabilities in the service of the Ukrainian Ground Forces, presenting them in terms generally used by the militaries / defense sector. However, it is not the purpose of this article to discuss each weapon. Details belong to the article about the weapon itself. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The point of being specific with the type is to provide a quick view of the force's capabilities. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Twitter

Someone is removing some weapons because they came from a twitter reference, when this was the case for many others. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: Twitter is generally not a reliable source as per WP:TWITTER policy. It may be used in some cases, e.g. if it's statements made from a verified account by government officials, etc and there is no alternative source (but keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, so there is no need to rush to get every updates into WP). However, even then it is preferable to use WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus: Just to draw your attention: Twitter is generally not an acceptable source (with some exceptions), as per WP:USERG and WP:TWITTER. Also, interpreting what's in the footage may constitute WP:SYNTH. You can use WP:RS which rely on Twitter accounts, though. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
So if I see a particular weapon in a photo from an article etc and can definitively determine it is that weapon can that not be used as a reference? Example of this being the M70 Zastava. Basedosaurus (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus: Not really. There are many issues with that, e.g. was this photo made in Ukraine, are you sure it's used by the regular troops (and not some other armed formations), can we trust the author or whoever posted the photo that it's not fake, etc? See the WP:USERG and WP:SOCIALMEDIA policies. Also, is it definitely M70 Zastava? Can another editor verify it? Because sources should be easy to verify, see the WP:VERIFY policy. Now, even if you carefully verified and determined that some photo is representing the truth, it would be original research. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do it, see WP:NOR. There are some exceptions, e.g. if the photo is published by a verified account (let's say by the Ukrainian Ground Forces), if it's a footage with a journalist interviewing the soldiers who clearly state what weaponry they use, etc.
Having said all this, you can often find WP:SECONDARY sources which monitor the same Twitter accounts (e.g. UAWeapons) and write articles overviewing the weaponry. As long as such sources are deemed to be reliable, you can use them. -- Mindaur (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Bulgarian T-72

The source is from the Austrian military,not Oryx so i'm confused why it was deleted? Basedosaurus (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your source used the same source as Oryx, see [2]. However, the fact that there is evidence of tanks with Bulgarian components doesn't necessarily mean they delivered whole tanks. They could have repaired some, especially since there was such an agreement: [3]; they might have repaired/refurbished/modernized tanks for other countries (either long ago or recently), which then delivered them to Ukraine; or they might have just given spare parts and other components. Neither Ukraine nor Bulgaria confirmed any of this. So, the evidence is circumstantial and speculative (and Oryx has done it with some other equipment too), which disqualifies these sources on this matter (even though they otherwise seem to be relatively reliable).
The bottom line is: we don't add WP:RUMOUR and I would encourage everyone to cross-verify using multiple independent sources. -- Mindaur (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't use Oryx for the edit you reverted,I used a more much more reliable source.Would you not consider published military intelligence to be reliable?The source does says specifically state that whole tanks were donated not just parts etc.
You also reverted the edit regarding AS-90?I don't see how that is speculation at all.The source directly mentions the model and was published well after the M109 was announced or confirmed.Other sources have since confirmed this.See here:[4].Forces.Net is considered highly RS and could be compared to be a Military News version of the BBC-see here:British Forces Broadcasting Service Basedosaurus (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus:
  • Regarding the intelligence data: no, not necessarily. Intelligence agencies, by their very nature, operate in an environment of incomplete data and thus work in a very different way; one of the fundamentals is that they analyze information and make assessments based on probabilities (e.g. see [5]). Even if some of the analytics can be creative and incredibly accurate (e.g. see German tank problem). WP is an encyclopedia and we collect knowledge. The tables in this article should represent facts, rather the likelihoods. Moreover, you need to look into contradicting information, e.g. Bulgaria has promised repairs but explicitly ruled out supplies so far (so, even if they make indirect supplies, they deliberately maintain plausible deniability).
  • Regarding AS-90: your Shephard Media article is behind the paywall so I cannot see the full content. However, nothing is said in the visible part of the text about AS-90 (and the associative photo of AS-90 in Estonia means absolutely nothing). So, can you provide a better source? There were speculations in the past, see [6], which got picked up by other media / random news portals. As it later turned out, UK actually acquired 20 decommissioned M109 instead [7]. There is nothing to suggest so far that AS-90 is happening. It was not mentioned in the official government press release [8] and the current training is known to be for M270 and L119 only [9].
Having said all this, new decisions are made and we can always add the entries when they are confirmed or there is a more robust evidence. However, let's maintain a higher standard of what is a fact here. -- Mindaur (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur Shepard Media source can be seen if you sign up for free. Basedosaurus (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI: [10]. We have a confirmation of +10 self-propelled howitzers, but still no clarification on type. I think it's more likely to be another batch of M109, but we will see if it's AS-90. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces → List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – Reason:

The current article is about the equipment used by Ukrainian Ground Forces, but it already mixes up weapons (and quantities) which are used by Ukrainian Air Assault Forces, Ukrainian Naval Infantry, Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine) and Special Operations Forces (Ukraine). It even includes equipment used by Ukrainian Navy and Ukrainian Air Force. I suggest to rename the current article to a more general list concerning the Armed Forces, because:

  • I don't think it is realistic to reconcile the information by determining which branches use particular equipment. Sources often just announce the transfer to the armed forces, without additional information. Some equipment is used by multiple branches (e.g. SAMs and drones), but it's difficult to reconcile the quantities or which specific variants are used by each branch.
  • There is a lot of standard issue equipment, so listing them separately for each branch would result in a lot of unnecessary duplication.
  • IMO, there is little value in trying to differentiate this information. The purpose of such lists is to provide a general overview of the capability of the Armed Forces in question. Also, if known and necessary, it can be mentioned in the notes (e.g. what quantity of Bayraktar TB2s belong to the Air Force and what to the Navy).

-- Mindaur (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, but: the resulting article will be even longer than this one, which is already quite big. Putting all equipment of the ZSU here and renaming the article idea is a good idea in my opinion. Unsourced entries likely to remain this way (like the whole bayonets, vans and field kitchens sections, and some more) should be removed before widening this list's scope, with no prejudice against re-adding some of this content if adequate sources are found. BilletsMauves (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Sure, but technically we should change the scope of the article by renaming before merging the entries. Certainly agree that that National Guard equipment should be merged/reconciled. Regarding the aircraft and ships: I think it's okay to create subsections in this article and merely link to those lists. Maintaing the list of ships and aircraft is much easier than tracking IFVs, APCs and similar in different branches of the armed forces.
I also agree with BilletsMauves that we should remove excessive lists on knives, field kitchens, radios, uniforms and other trivia. They are not only unsourced, but are also of little value. -- Mindaur (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree maybe the bayonets are of less value but I think the field kitchens could be seen as having some value. Basedosaurus (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes not sure if we should list all ship and aircraft here, but renaming it and featuring all non-ship an non-aircraft weapons is just logic in the current situation Norschweden (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    So that would include things such as Anti-ship weapons etc correct?   Basedosaurus (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    I would argue that it would be good to include the anti-ship weapons here, but it's fine to keep the List of active Ukrainian Navy ships as a separate article. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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) 18:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 02:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

SA80

The article used as a source reports the British MoD as saying that "while AK-pattern blank firing adaptors have been procured, SA80’s with blank firing adaptors have also been used to ‘maintain strict safety conditions for both British and Ukrainian soldiers during training and to meet the urgency of the training requirement.’". While @Basedosaurus's reasoning may be plausible, the MoD's statement doesn't point towards these rifles being sent to Ukraine. In the absence of an official confirmation, or photos of SA80s popping up inside Ukraine, such speculation falls under WP:CRYSTAL. BilletsMauves€500 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Length of article

It's been mentioned above already, but the article is now over 300Kb. The lead section talks about "infantry weapons, vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, and clothing", but the content seem to have moved on since that was written. We could split this up into a group of shorter, more readable articles, or, using List of equipment of the United States Army as an example, we could simply pare it down a little. Storchy (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the article is so big is because this talks about all branches of the Ukrainian military.Part of the reason this was done is because there are some items used by the military that are unclear as to what branch is the "owner/user".Part of the reason to this is the 2022 Russian invasion,as countries send huge amounts of weapons and aid we don't know exactly what branch is receiving each item.Therefore it is much easier to have it as one article.The consensus was to obviously keep the obvious things like fixed wing aircraft and naval vessel into there original articles for now atleast. Basedosaurus (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of useless stuff we could trim: camouflages, gas masks, field kitchens, "portable equipment" (most unreferenced), even helmets. I would go further: remove light utility vehicles / cars, if they are not armed or armoured vehicles (e.g. no reason to list every pick up truck, but keep Humvee as they are part of the motorized infantry, armed with M2 machine guns and used in combat).
In general, I think some editors got carried away by adding every seen pistol, rifle, etc. We should focus on standard-issue equipment. Naturally, there is going to be a lot improvisation during the war time, but it doesn't mean we should list every improvised commercial drone or other item seen. Trying to come up with more accurate reliable numbers of modern IFVs, artillery, missiles and other heavy weapons have much greater value than counting pistols. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I would have to disagree about removing utility vehicles.They make up a large part of any military logistics and every military equipment page on Wikipedia lists them.Granted there are a couple unreferenced ones on this page that don't seem that remotely plausible to actually be in use. Basedosaurus (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Trucks do and their properties can matter a great deal (as we've seen with major Russian logistical failures); I don't propose to remove them. However, civilian-grade light cars (e.g. pick up trucks, like Ford Ranger) have limited logistical capability. -- Mindaur (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur If we are adding HARM missiles which are air-to-ground missiles and no ground to ground or ground to air variant is known does that mean we are now adding Fixed wing aircraft?The missiles to my knowledge can only really be used on fixed-wing aircraft. Basedosaurus (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, there is a demo ground-launching system for AGM-88 HARM, but nobody is using it (so it remains a prototype). Ukraine is launching HARMs from the fixed-wing aicraft, yes. I added it here as we don't have a better section to add it. It is a significant capability, though, so we should keep it somewhere! -- Mindaur (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You could go add it to UAF if not already there. Basedosaurus (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur
I believe we should think about adding fixed wing aircraft to this page,my reasoning is that on the actual UAF WP it seems no one is allowed to basically add anything to it.For example no donations of aircraft are allowed to be added as they only allow the use of one pre war source. Basedosaurus (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus: I am not against, but I think you should have created a separate section for the discussion. Meanwhile, I think we should the remove camouflage section. -- Mindaur (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur Whats your reasoning for this? Basedosaurus (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Also part of the reason that this article is quite big is not because of the items but actually because of the detail/description. Basedosaurus (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I maintain a large personal wiki for my own notes, and I've encountered this problem before, on my own terms. The MediaWiki software is tremendously flexible, but it finally does not make for a great database replacement. You can adopt any manner of clever top-level headers to help keep your mind straight, and then locate items using CTRL-F (text search) when you forget your own heading structure. But this really only works when everything is listed as one searchable page. Once I thought I could fix that by putting subcontent into template pages and transcluding all the subcontent into one large, searchable page. But this actually burdens your index rather badly, because (at least in my case) MediaWiki indexes both the fragments, separately, and the combined entity. Perhaps there's a special page control to prevent the amalgam from being indexed separately (I didn't seriously look for this).

The current page is not that badly structured, but it's unwieldy, nevertheless. In particular, I wish I could isolate:

  • standard Ukrainian military issue
  • Soviet-era military issue
  • post-Soviet Russian issue — likely includes Belarus
  • NATO-issue
  • sundry and improvised

By "issue" it would mean that, at least as some point in time, the equipment was standard issue for, e.g., some current NATO country, as NATO-compatible gear. In the case of duplicate issue, I would put in the first applicable category, as listed above.

For my own wiki, to keep my head straight, I decided to create a top-level page titled 'combat materiel' for everything military that can inflict harm and damage on the opponent (in the kinetic sphere). I would include field transports, such as Jeeps, here, because a Jeep loaded with troops can shoot back just fine.

So this article could be mildly trimmed, as a subpage, under the title list of weapons of ...

Helmets, vests, gloves, boots, goggles, shovels, navigation aids and communication aids could then be listed in a subpage article titled list of combat gear of ... I would also place field medical equipment here.

List of combat support systems of ... could cover radar systems not directly integrated into a a fire control system, drones with cameras but no munitions, satcom terminals, etc.

List of logistical and engineering support systems of ... could cover transport trucks (fuel) which amount to juicy targets with limited ability to protect themselves, special tanks lacking main guns that erect bridges, vehicle recovery systems, etc.

In my own wiki, I would certainly organize my own page so that standard Ukrainian equipment was listed first, followed by legacy Soviet and Russian equipment, followed by NATO equipment (mostly modern), and then the sundry riffraff.

There are very different supply chain implications for these major groupings, in terms of where the stuff can be obtained and serviced, longer term viability in the conflict, and longer term viability after conflict cessation.

IMO this conceptual frame would make each subpage more encyclopedic, and less ornigraphic.

My rather ad hoc proposed subpage structure of weapons, gear, and two different levels of support system would help to shrink the largest single page at least a little bit (the main page would become small, mainly a directory to explain the subpage structure).

I'm not embarrassed about my ad hoc proposal because I've fought this battle for years within my own wiki, and there simply isn't a perfect solution when you tread too closely to a real database.

Like politics, subdividing this page must hew to the art of the possible. Piss all over my proposal if you wish, but I doubt you'll come up with anything better yourself. Been there, done that, many years, mostly futile. Kudos if you actually succeed. I would be most impressed. — MaxEnt 12:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I probably should add, it case it's not obvious, that NATO-compliant weapons and gear (especially the modern stuff) almost certainly arrives in Ukraine with strings attached about the combat theatres and modes of engagement the West wishes to see Ukraine undertake. (Of course, the Ukrainians will do whatever works in a pinch, but they should respect these wishes as much as practical if they wish the pipeline to continue to supply the best kit.) The West has many concerns about training, life cycle (aka misuse to to inadequate training), loss of this equipment to enemy forces (to be turned around, sold on the international black market, scavenged for otherwise embargoed components, analyzed for the capabilities of the latest revision, etc.). Nobody will talk about this straight up in the media, but the NATO equipment (most likely) carries a quite distinct usage profile, as well, in actual combat. Just for one example, HIMARs was delivered with an integrated geo-fence. Which is another reason why I would partition this kit as a separate beast. — MaxEnt 12:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Another possible split point is personal firearms. It can get a bit murky, e.g. with larger but still individual portable machine guns, but mostly this would encompass firearms that can be realistically assigned to a single combatant, who keeps the weapon on thəir person on a regular basis. — MaxEnt 14:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oryx

Maybe lets update the amount they have based on confirmed losses from Oryx website? 185.139.124.72 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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) 10:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Capture Russian equipment

I don't think that in this list there should be captured Russian equipment for several reasons:

  • Most of this equipment was captured, not put in use. If the captured equipment can not be recovered, it gets destroyed or spared out for parts. So even if it's just [recently?] captured, it could get destroyed.
  • The amount of captured equipment varies from day to day, keeping track of it is nearly impossible.
  • The length of this article is by itselfalready very long; a better idea would be to move the equipment capture to another page, like Captured Russian equipment during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

— 2800:23A7:F080:A49:3D17:F88C:3E26:ED47 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit from erratic but serviceable ESL and sketchy markup. Did not change sense of comment. — MaxEnt 13:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, important items of captured equipment of the kind that Ukraine already owns and operates is an entirely valid addition. Even if all you scavenge from a captured T-72 is the gun turret with a working gun barrel, it's still a substantial trophy. — MaxEnt 13:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Also its not about if every item captured is in active service, but it about what the UAF has in its possession/inventory. Previously non active service/in storage items have been listed here before. There have been lots of examples of captured equipment in active service Basedosaurus (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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) 11:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

New equipment to be added

I have found new equipment to be added with proofs for each equipment type. I leave it here cause I'm not very familiar with coding. 1) Astra SM 66.40 Prime mover truck donated by Italy with FH-70 howitzers- source https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597681679849902082?lang=ca

2) Renault TRM 10000 truck donated by France with TRF-1 howitzers- source https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1605709991607795712

3) KBK AKMS donated by Poland- source https://twitter.com/war_noir/status/1585566294220341248

4) W85 heavy machine gun in Ukranian service- source https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1592150688477646850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

5)20N5 82mm mortar- source https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1537882843287670784

6) 7 Jeep Wranglers donated by Luxembourg- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/11/lotsakit-from-luxembourg-duchys-arms.html

7) Upik-82 Ukranian 82mm mortar- source https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1586819514423025665 https://ukrarmor.com/products/mortar-caliber-82-mm-upik-82

8) PGW Defence LRT-3 sniper rifle likely donated by Canada- source https://twitter.com/war_noir/status/1510802128012521474?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1510802128012521474%7Ctwgr%5E5b70d3cf2692b12a203f964a13ea4f6135f7a94b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefirearmblog.com%2Fblog%2F2022%2F11%2F29%2Frundown-canadian-small-arms-light-weapons-transferred-ukraine%2F

9)7500 C13 hand grenades supplied by Canada- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/09/enabling-victory-canadian-military.html

10) French OF-37 HE hand grenades- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/09/enabling-victory-canadian-military.html

11) American M67 hand grenades- source https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/wyysjd/review_of_us_fragmentation_hand_grenade_m67/

12) F1, RGN, RGO Soviet-era hand grenades, which are kind of obvious- source (do the google translate) https://espreso.tv/article/2014/08/20/chym_voyuye_ukrayina_arsenal_ato

13) 100+ Quantix recon UAVs- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

14) M240 240mm mortar, likely taken from a museum, ammo was captuerd from Russians who use the self propelled version of this mortar "2S4 Tyulpan"- source https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukrainian_army_uses_the_m_240_museum_mortar_to_destroy_russian_occupiers_in_the_south_photo-4366.html

15) Finnish Dshk heavy machine guns- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/09/joining-nato-joining-cause-finnish-aid.html

16) 1500 more M72 supplied by Finland- source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/09/joining-nato-joining-cause-finnish-aid.html

17) Nammo M72-EC -source https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/08/vikings-for-victory-norwegian-arms.html

18) Osa air defence system from Poland- source (use Google translate) https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/v-ukrayini-pomityly-polski-zrk-osa-ak/

19) M57 60mm Serbian-made mortar- source https://twitter.com/calibreobscura/status/1503124273497583624 Petro Tym (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While some Twitter sources are in use, one should strive for better sources. See the WP:TWITTER policy. -- Mindaur (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed if they are available. Basedosaurus (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Rifles

I think that rifles, pistols and other simmilar weapons should be deleted from this article. Maybe create another article if someone see's a point. Sth like ,,personall equipment used by ZSU soldiers". Here we should focus on the more important stuff like heavy equipment 188.33.232.153 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Rifles II

Rifles, pistols etc should be in a seperate article, because this one is too long 188.33.232.153 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Changed title from Rifles to Rifles II to distinguish from previous entry. — MaxEnt 13:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Major cleanup of the article

The article needs a major cleanup of its references as there is at least 117 instances where Twitter is used as source for the article's content, most of it as a primary source. Twitter is generally an unreliable source per WP:RSPSOURCES and is not accepted in vast majority of artilces on Wikipedia as a reference so not sure why noone is bothered about it here particularly. BlackFlanker (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

On seeing your comment here, I just steam shoveled {{better source needed}} on all the twitter cites not already flagged (except those by ref name, which I doubt were commonplace). Twitter was already bad enough, before it was owned by a volcanic borehole from planet Mars, armed with a disruption gun roulette wheel that would make King Midas duck and cover. — MaxEnt 13:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
While on the topic of cleanup, I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia but should the equipment be listed alphabetically, rather than by order of recent acquisitions? Seems like a bit of a messJavierbrugue (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Oryx is not much more reliable as a source, since it relies on Twitter posts for its data. There are defence websites out there that list pre-war equipment strength. James Tweedie (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is far too large, non-essential information needs to be deleted or summarized.

. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then we should seek consensus to find out what can be considered non-essential and what is essential. Basedosaurus (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is entitled "List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine". Therefore, by definition, all equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine should be listed! The only other option would be to create a new page for, say medical equipment, and link to it. CrackDragon (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@CrackDragon: Agree. Perhaps splitting the page into sublists per types of equipment or per operational environment (“land-based equipment” vs. “aircraft” vs. “watercraft”) or something like that can be an option, but removing whole sections under Uwdwadafsainainawinfi's pretense that "the article is way too big" sounds kind of unconstructive & without any sound logical basis.--Ɋnym (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Uwdwadafsainainawinfi, Basedosaurus, CrackDragon, and Ɋnym: Perhaps rename the article to "List of land-based equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine", retitle List of active Ukrainian Navy ships to "List of maritime equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" and create a "List of aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" similar to List of active United Kingdom military aircraft which would have the drones. This article would be shorter then but the title longer. It could use Ukrainian military instead of Armed Forces of Ukraine it would then be "List of land-based equipment of the Ukrainian military". I see this article was originally titled "List of equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces" and was moved in July 2022.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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) 23:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good source for verification - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/

this source will help with many references as claimed by Ukraine. eg. for Finnish 120mm mortar better verification requested - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/finland-commits-the-largest-military-aid-package-in-the-amount-of-e55-6-million/ 2001:4530:2:704:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFCF (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Infantry fighting vehicles

The content that was removed was either with no source, and/or was not seen in Ukraine and thus does not belong in the list, the rest has been grouped together due to the size of the article.

If anyone has evidence for other numbers or variants, they can add them with the appropriate source. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this also applies to better pictures Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Oryx is a reliable source as is the @UAWeapons Twitter account (frequently used by Oryx as a source). IMO, those values should be restored.
Also, the sourcing for several vehicles IFVs is wrong - they are using the "Foreign Aid" article from Oryx as a source for their numbers *before* the war. Musketeiro8 (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Then please edit this as I am disabled at the moment Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Requesting: addition of BMD-1 to the section Infantry fighting vehicles. Origin: {{URS}}. Number: 20. Sources:<ref name="military-balance-2021"/><ref>{{cite book |title=The Military Balance 2023 |publisher=Routledge |year=2023 |isbn=978-1-032-50895-5 |page=204}}</ref>

They were already included, until recent removal without any specific explanation. Thank you. Ɋnym (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any images or videos from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 where you can see them in action? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
We certiainly don't need one. Two reliable printed sources is more than enough, there's no need to giving additional images or videos.
(BTW - this is the "list of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine", definitely not a "list of AFU equipment used in action during the 2022 war" - so I have no idea why anyone should've asked giving images or videos from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 where you can see them in action.)
There's few images of BMD-1s in Ukrainian service on Commons, so choosing the image is not going to be a problem. Ɋnym (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You can bet that anything that hasn't been used in 2022 or 2023 is no longer in Ukraine's arsenal.
For instance, according to reports from 2015, 9K31 Strela-1 and BRDM-1 were still in the inventory, but they are no longer there because they were not spotted recently. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a betting person.
Anyway, your bets, unsubstantiated guesses and personal opinions are not relevant here - this is not a list of currently used equipment (as explained above) only. Just edit the list per request. Thank you. Ɋnym (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You just don't get it...
If you work on this principle, you would have to add dozens of vehicles and variants, which with a very high probability no longer belong to the arsenal of Ukraine. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from further personal attacks & attempts to distract from the topic.
We can deal with your issues at a proper place, but as the list currently stands, it's not limited to the equipment currently in use only. So far you've failed to give a source evidencing your assumptions & "bets" - and subjective speculations of a random user can hardly be used as a base for limiting the list contents.
I gave my sources above, please edit accordingly. Thank you. Ɋnym (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll say it one last time:
It's not about betting, unsubstantiated guesses or personal opinions!
It's about the general military inventory of Ukraine. Since as I have already mentioned, 9K31 Strela-1 and BRDM-1 (and many other entries) are no longer listed, and all of these were also not seen in 2022/23, this is also applied here. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Please stop with your tiring distractions to other materiel. This is not about them. This is, very clearly, about BMD-1 IFVs only.
I gave reliable sources evidencing that BMD-1s AE part of the equipment of AFU and attempts at "counterargumenting" by unsubstantiated guesses & speculations failed (even you've been forced to admit your failure on this point) - because they are just irrelevant here.
If you have no more objections, just edit the article. Thank you. Ɋnym (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources indicate that there are 20 in service as of 2022.
Source: The Military Balance 2023 Basedosaurus (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
If you really have this source in front of you, then please revise the section. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
there's the citation:The Military Balance 2023. Routledge. 2023. p. 204. ISBN 978-1-032-50895-5. Basedosaurus (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I just say that because the majority of people merely insert that source without considering whether it is genuinely supported. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why am i being prevented from adding to the wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HV85 19006 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


please update number anti-aircraft tanks GEPARD to 34 previously: 32 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HV85 19006 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

please add RBS-70 anti aircraft missile donated by Sweden used by UAF https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/zsu-zastosovuyut-zrk-rbs-70/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HV85 19006 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I am closing this request while it is under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

please update number anti-aircraft tanks GEPARD to 34 previously: 32

  • Why it should be changed:

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514

HV85 19006 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Government websites are WP:PRIMARY sources; can you find a secondary source for this? Lizthegrey (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

please add RBS-70 anti aircraft missile donated by Sweden used by UAF

  • Why it should be changed:

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/zsu-zastosovuyut-zrk-rbs-70/

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/zsu-zastosovuyut-zrk-rbs-70/

HV85 19006 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Government websites are WP:PRIMARY sources; can you find a secondary source for this? Lizthegrey (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The linked reference isn't from a government website though. BilletsMauves€500 17:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, cheers for the correction. Got thrown by the domain name. Lizthegrey (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Edit requests should only be opened when the criteria at WP:EDITXY are met, which is not the case here. Please sort this out before opening additional requests. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 Note: See my comment below. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This entire section is a mess. I strongly recommend opening a new section with a clear structure and the suggested edit. I have closed the open requests for now as they do not meet the criteria specified at WP:EDITXY. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Enrico2005 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

i want to modify the equipment of ukraine.

 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. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Triniton Armoured Car

@BilletsMauves There is substantial proof that the UAF operates this vehicles, you only need to look at this photo to see that the vehicle has the UAF insignia on it.

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD_(%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8C)#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:BM_Triton,_Kyiv_2017,_07.jpg Basedosaurus (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. Insignia can be applied on a vehicle even though it isn't in service with the corresponding service, and it has been done before more than once. That photo from an exhibition is anything but a "substantial proof" of Tritons in service with the ZSU. BilletsMauves€500 10:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This source also states that it is used by the armed forces.
[11]https://old.defence-ua.com/index.php/en/news/228-ukraine-has-developed-a-new-armored-car-named-triton Basedosaurus (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@BilletsMauves Also this source specifically states the UAF-https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/02/26/9312_poroshenko_provided_territorial.html. Basedosaurus (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The source you linked to says that "the vehicles will be manufactured to meet the requirement of the Ukraine Armed Forces and National Guard". Also, the article was written in November 2015, before the first deliveries of the vehicle took place. So using this source to state that the Triton has entered service with the ZSU would be WP:OR, as the article doesn't directly support the content you want to add. BilletsMauves€500 09:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, it's WP:OR to draw conclusions from photos. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

US fact sheet on military aid to Ukraine

There is an official fact sheet on US military aid to Ukraine, could someone please make it so the numbers on the list line up with this information. For example, there are 1258 M1113 "Humvee" on the list pleged/delivered by the US alone but according to this fact sheet the number of "Humvees" pleged/delivered by the US alone from the beginning of the full-scale invasion should be 1700+. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Feb/03/2003155499/-1/-1/0/20230119-UKRAINE-FACT-SHEET-FEB-3.PDF Kionen (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Kevlar-E

Please, add info about Kevlar-E. This IFV was transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and was used in combat.Бровар (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to downsize the article

Breaking down the article "List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" into different groups could potentially make it easier for readers to navigate and find specific information. Here one way to organize the information:

1) By type of equipment: This could involve creating subheadings for different types of equipment such as History of Tanks in Ukraine, History of Infantry fighting vehicles in Ukraine, History of Helicoptersin Ukraine, etc. This would allow readers to quickly access information on a specific type of equipment they are interested in.

For example, the base for History of Tanks in Ukraine would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_the_Ukrainian_Army Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You would then only link the other respective articles on this article Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I definitely think this article could be organised in a better manor, however when you look at any other page regarding equipment of XYZ all the information is in one place as opposed to being spread out. I think a large part of why this article is as big as it is is because of the amount of citations and references and is from what I've seen one of the better referenced article out there in these type of articles. Basedosaurus (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we could cut out some sources as they are reflected in others that already exist, but that won't change much as the article is more than 4 times the size it should be. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@Basedosaurus Here is an example how to solve it (see tank section). You would then only have to apply this to each section, so most sources would be consistent.
Draft:List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War
Also, one would probably have to split the list between infantry equipment and combat vehicles. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

Gefechtshelm M92: source for the Belgian donation.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/08/a-show-of-shame-belgian-weapons.html

Also Belgium donated: Unmanned Underwater Vehicles:

  • 10 R7 Remotely Operated Vehicles

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:

  • A few Sky-Hero Loki MKII Quadcopters

All these are in the same source: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/08/a-show-of-shame-belgian-weapons.html Waffely (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of Challenger Tanks 14 not 28

Challenger Tanks 14 not 28 188.103.107.67 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

500 Pistols HK SFP9 from Germany to Ukraine

500 HK SFP9 were announced to be delivered in March 2023. 188.103.107.67 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

14 Challenger Tanks, not 28

GB sends 14 Challenger Tanks, not 28. 188.103.107.67 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to downsize the article x2

Here is an example how to solve it (see tank section). You would then only have to apply this to each section, so most sources would be consistent.

Draft:List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Also, one would probably have to split the list between infantry equipment and combat vehicles. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

As an outsider, I have to resort to using an old revision of this article now as the current state of the vehicles section is unusable. 2601:98A:4202:2FF0:6047:674D:624A:8EE7 (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
You vandalized the article and used a low quality source everywhere.
Previous version before vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine&oldid=1149093984 Franfran2424 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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) 19:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

TOS-1 Trophy use

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-armed-forces-of-ukraine-use-the-trophy-tos-1/ Evidence that Ukraine is still using captured TOS-1 launchers. Mr. Komori (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisions of figures and sources

I note that the figures for pre-war Ukrainian equipment strength have been revised upwrads several times since I started viewing this page, and now most of the numbers for IFVs simply state "N/A". Looking at snapshots of this page on the Wayback Machine I see figures more in line with those on established defence websites.

The Source given for most figures now is Oryx. This is not a very reliable source, seeing as it relies on "Open Source Intelligence" (social media posts). Oryx is not at all impartial, openly supporting Ukraine in the conflict. It would be helpful to have other, more verifiable sources for data. 86.149.202.164 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Too many revisons

Recent changes to this page have seen some of the data become unreliable, and then disappear altogether. It might be better to revert back to an older version and update from there.

I'd suggest splitting the figures for each type of tank, IFV etc. into three columns: The number on strength before February 24 2022, the number received since then and the number claimed captured. Then a total at the end. That would save confusion. James Tweedie (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Country of origin is all over the place and incorrect

The Toyota Hilux is not partly of Danish origin, yet the person who created that addition to the page listed Denmark as the country this vehicle originates from. In addition, the type 88 Japanese helmet is falsely claimed to be of American origin, when this helmet has no American origin, it was developed starting in 1978 (5 years before the US's PASGT helmet was released) by Japan's technical research and development institute (a government weapons research branch under the ministry of defence).

It's very clear why you can't use wikipedia as a source in university or even high school, and the creator of wikipedia told average people to stop assuming it is an encyclopedia. It is literally more akin to random subreddit opinions by internet kids, nothing more. There are no paid educated people writing anything on wikipedia, it is therefore not really an actual encylopedia, more akin to Reddit with a style sheet that makes it look visually similar to encyclopedia Britannica (an actual encyclopedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.23.220 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It literally says "Toyota Land Cruiser" in the left column for the name listing of the unit, and then has a picture to the right of that of a 2006 Toyota Hilux from a top gear episode. Seriously, come on Wikipedia, you can't be this incompetent right? This is beyond absurd at this point.
BTW the actual source website provided, states that Lithuania handed over Toyota Land Cruisers (these are specifically the Land Cruiser 200) to Ukraine, and it has a picture in the actual linked website source of these land cruisers (so what genius on wikipedia decided to use a photo on wikipedia of a 2006 Toyota Hilux instead?)
Aside from that ridiculousness. How is Norway listed as a joint country of origin of this anyway? The Toyota Land Cruiser 200 series are developed by Toyota (it has nothing to do with Norway), and the country which had some of these cars and transferred them to Ukraine was Lithuania (not Norway). So who added in Norway and for what reasoning?
The Land Cruiser 200 AT42M (specific listing of what Ukraine got), these were originally bought by Lithuania (12 of them originally). From an Icelandic company (not Norway) called Arctic Truck Company. These don't produce this vehicle, but they take the Land Cruiser 200 and basically place bigger tyres and a few other things they do to it (akin to after market modifications), then they call it the AT42M basically, this is what was sold to Lithuania, and then Lithuania later gave 7 of these to Ukraine.
Surely I don't have to explain that Iceland is a country and it isn't part of Norway right? Iceland left Norway in 1944 and became its own country. Norway's flag should not be in this listing, Norway has literally nothing to do with the entire story. Norway's flag should be replaced with Iceland's flag (however even then, it's still a bit of an exaggeration, it should simply be Japan's flag there, and a bracketed explanation that the specific Land Cruiser 200 is modified slightly by an Icelandic company). 124.170.1.253 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Add - Ukrainian RGT-27S2 (HAND GRENADE) (РГТ-27С2), a high-explosive (HE), thermobaric, hand grenade intended for the destruction of enemy manpower in shelters of various types, in the open, as well as to disable vehicles, that has been adopted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Often seen dropped by Drones. Mr Dakky (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture of T-84U wrongly placed on the T-80 section

A picture of a T-84U has been wrongly placed on the T-80 section, the T-84 is considered its own standalone tank and is already included in the article.

The picture in question is even labelled as such:

File:UA 3rd Bde T-84U.jpg

Please, fix it. 186.132.17.63 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Source for Dutch equipment sent to Ukraine

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2023_global_security_army_industry/netherlands_reveals_list_of_weapons_combat_vehicles_sent_to_ukraine.html is already referenced in YPR-765#Export. The original and official source seems to be https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/oostflank-navo-gebied/militaire-steun-aan-oekraine. The numbers mentioned in this source, e.g. 196 YPR-765 vehicles and 8 PzH-2000 vehicles, could be used to supplement the article. I can't perform the edit myself since I can't pass the protection that has been put on it. 501stGhost (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please revert page to when it was useful.

Since edits by Uwdwadafsainainawinfi in early April the page is unusable. All data related to combat vehicle numbers has been removed and replaced with N/A, every source just links back to Oryx. I get it, Oryx is great, but there should be more information than that. 1/3 of the photos for the vehicles are still missing and exist as a blank template. 51 vehicles of extremely varied types have been lumped together under "Tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers" while "tank destroyers" have stayed under different category name despite having only 2 vehicles under that category. Additionally, having "and similar" in a category header is unprofessional and speaks to the low quality of this page.

The whole category of combat vehicles feels like someone was making a test edit and then saved it and no one has fixed it for over a month now. I have an edit from April 10th open permanently as it's the last time that the category was organized in a readable fashion and included any meaningful information.

I don't generally edit wikipedia pages and don't have the ability to edit this one, please, someone fix this page so it's useable again. 2601:98A:4202:2FF0:DCE5:7266:8BFC:E5A9 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree, edits have rendered the page useless. Everything has been deleted. Not even pre-war numbers survived.
A higher level user reverted some of the changes, but the milutary vehicles section remains vandalized Franfran2424 (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Until reverts are conducted on the affected areas to the version linked, use this link to see the page in a usable way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine&oldid=1149093984 Franfran2424 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I was away and didn't get a chance to see the damage done by Uwdwadafsainainawinfi until now. I have placed a 2-month block on this user for copyright violations and vandalism. Unfortunately, the last "good" version was a month ago and new military aid was announced after that. It will take some time to sift through everything to remove the copyrighted materials while preserving the newly announced details. Tagging Panzerpampfpony, Borysk5, Cimmerian praetor, Tm, Jasonkhanlar, Jjmclellan82, WatcherZero, Nairoflying, Filipisepic and Narayansg to see if they can assist with this big task. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I've decided to give it a try. I'm using the IISS Military Balance 2022, which was published a couple of weeks before the invasion of Ukraine started, so that's probably the closest you can get from the pre-war numbers. Also for anyone curious about it, I removed the 9P148 from the list because it's not listed in the Military Balance 2022 and the other source provided doesn't mention it specifically, only that modernized BRDM-2s were delivered to the Ukrainian Army. Mr. Komori (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Valuk APC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuk This armored personnel carrier is not on the list 5.139.18.172 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2A4 is listed twice

I find it messy and confusing as to why the Leoaprd 2A4 is listed twice in the article. Instead of 40 and 14, it should be listed as one with 54 tanks. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:E9E6:3EC9:460A:594D (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

40 donated by Poland, Spain, Norway and Canada; 14 by the Netherlands and Denmark. Yeah, I know, this article is a mess. Alin2808 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

image for the LvTeh all terrain vehicles

https://www.facebook.com/LVTeh/photos/pb.100063692616482.-2207520000./504788497982698/?type=3

Found an image to use for it Slimebor (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

BV206S pledged by Germany

Germany has pledged 64 BV206S [1] The source says just "BV206", but it's listed in the armored vehicles category, which means it's the "S" variant. 82.194.220.91 (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Military support for Ukraine". Federal Government. Retrieved 31 May 2023.

TPz Fuchs APC pledged by Germany

66 Fuchs APCs have been pledged by Germany. Rheinmetall AG says these are TPz Fuchs https://esut.de/2023/06/meldungen/42491/kampfkraeftige-transportpanzer-fuchs-fuer-die-ukraine/ 88.88.249.87 (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

These are more likely to be FFG APC (BATT UMG) https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/ukraine-krieg-deutschland-liefert-der-ukraine-66-panzerfahrzeuge-84158658.bild.html --94.246.10.151 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Make sections collapsable

Honestly it really sucks trying to look through this whole list without collapsing some sections. I wanna look at the tank section and not have to scroll through all their firearms and anti tank equipment. Please! 2601:183:CB80:DDC0:D5AC:B476:7545:F10F (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Anti aircrat armored vehicle picture

Could add this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZSU-23-4M_Rokach,_Kyiv_2021,_22.jpg for ZSU-23-4M-A Ettenrocal (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

In section Aircraft → Unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous vehicles → Reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles, the detail section for Tekever AR3 has a typo of "annouced" instead of "announced". I am requesting a fix of the typo.  theomached  (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Recoil16 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Article length and detail

If the article is too long or contains too much detail, please split it up into one for each force instead of removing data. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

'Light tanks' section lists FV101 Scorpion purportedly purchased by Armored Turtle volunteer organization. There's no evidence they sealed a deal, though, as the only Armored Turtle's update on the bargain status seems to be 'Have you purchased Scorpions already? - Not really' conversation glimpse in Facebook comments. Not to mention that a link attached to entry doesn't confirm the purchase and just describes the situation as 'volunteer group is asking the public for monetary donations'. Basically, as of August 2014 we have not a speck of evidence that FV101s have ever been purchased.

Considering all said above the 'Light tanks' section should be removed. Andrey.bessemer (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
How I am supposed to provide a reliable source for the purpose that have never been sealed? In theory, a person who suggested adding the 'Light tanks' section should have done so, yet the only source provided doesn't confirm the act of such purchase and sale. Andrey.bessemer (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023 (2)

In section Combat vehicles → Armored fighting vehicles, the OT-64 SKOT entry needs 'Number' value tweak as there are three documented purchases of this vehicle type, namely 2 for 103rd and 1 for 116th Territorial Defense Brigades. All vehicles allegedly appear a subject of medevac conversion. Therefore I am requesting to change the SKOT number from 1 to 3. Andrey.bessemer (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
[12]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1qoFSxrETg - OT-64 R2 APC for 62nd Battalion of 103rd Territorial Defense Brigade
[13]https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=embed_video&v=970296261008329 - OT-64 R2 APC for 66th Battalion of 103rd Territorial Defense Brigade
[14]https://resh.news/news/4087/ - OT-64 R3M for 116th Territorial Defense Brigade Andrey.bessemer (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Trophy vehicles use

Not all captured vehicles are necessarily in service with the AFU, due being damaged in battle before being captured, or due the lack of spare parts and ammunition. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-competing-with-west-to-supply-weapons-to-ukraine-colonel-2023-8
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/ukraines_armed_forces_revealed_amount_of_trophy_equipment_why_it_is_less_than_that_reported_by_public_sources-7813.html Personally, I would only keep the trophy vehicles are known to being use with the AFU (with reliable sources showing them being actively used), instead of just automatically putting everything down from Oryx's list, but I would like to hear some second opinions first. Mr. Komori (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggest additions (and subtractions)

You might consider adding four T-122 Sakarya MLRS from Turkey (https://military-wiki.com/iron-rain-t-122-sakarya-to-ukraine-turkey-fuels-the-war/) and possibly 38 M198 howitzers from the US, seeing as the Russian MoD has claimed one of each destroyed.

You might alos consider reducing the number of Challenger 2 tanks, since one or two have been destroyed so far... 2A00:23C4:5F8E:8901:69B5:1555:9137:A45B (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs reliable secondary sources for that. Given that the Russian MoD (and to a lesser extent, the Ukrainian MoD) tends to exaggerate their claims. Also, Wiki types of sites aren't reliable sources: WP:RSPWIKIA.
As for the equipment losses WP:NOTNEWS, and the article is already long as it is. Mr. Komori (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

Change Lativa to Latvia in the MANPADS section SomeoneOK (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deauthorized. (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

The Steyr Aug was delivered by Austria and not Australia 2A02:8108:3E40:1A09:281D:B40:619E:E9C5 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mr. Komori (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Source in the article mentions Australian produced Steyr AUGs being sent to Ukraine. Also, Austria still remains neutral so they haven't delivered lethal aid to Ukraine yet. Mr. Komori (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

I think the "UA dynamics Punisher" drone should be moved from reconisance drones to ordinance dropping drone category. As i understand it, its for dropping bombs on targgets Slimebor (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Komori (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

add picture of Leopard 2R

Leopard 2R

Cahlstrand (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Komori (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

minor typo

sniper rifles: it's the HLR by C.G. Haenel, not HRL, in case someone wants to search for it. Also, one could add unter notes "450 ordered, donated by Germany" or something. btw, product description page is https://www.cg-haenel.de/en/products/hlr/, if that is of any use.--2003:E2:C70C:7D00:D0E9:D640:6828:5C47 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

utlity = utility 2603:8000:D300:3650:2C17:A253:16BD:1ADD (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 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. Shadow311 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Site the usage of T-80UD within the Ukraine Army

Image/video shows a restored T-80UD in service with the Ukrainian Army. The T-80UD was produced in Ukraine during its time with the Soviet Union at the Kharkiv plant. The T-80UD is the basis for all Ukrainian T-84 designs. It is essentially a cosmetically different vehicle from the T-80U, and also features a diesel engine versus the gas turbine engine. The "UD" design was for economic purposes. Ukraine had an estimated ~30 vehicles in storage throughout the country however, sources citing that number are unknown. These remaining T-80UD's have been restored to active service and have seen at least two accounts of them actively maneuvering in battlefield conditions. The vehicle has been identified through its Remote 12.7mm Weapon Station, Engine Exhaust, and headlight configuration which are all different from a standard T-80U.

-https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeuAnIFUoAAn9Eg?format=jpg&name=900x900

-https://t.me/supernova_plus/17759 24.16.170.217 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

M548 listed as donated by Denmark. In reality they are donated by Norway

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/sak/id2994359/ Albertmoebius (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Komori (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_equipment_of_the_Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine/Archive_1&oldid=1223236522"