Talk:SU-85

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Panther tank thicker armor than Tiger?

In the "Development" section:

Is this somehow in the context because they didn't see any Panthers before Summer 1943? If not its simply wrong I would say, no matter if the Panther was maybe "better" because of firepower, mobility and protection, but the Tiger was better armored, not to talk about Tiger II, only maybe Jagdpanther and other versions later were heavier armored than the first Tigers but don't think so, same with weapon, the Tiger II had the even better 88 while the Jagdtiger used once again an heavy FlaK (125mm?).

"The Soviet command also had reports of the Panther tank, that was in development then and possessed thicker armor than the Tiger; both represented an advance in German tank design. Although the Panther was not seen in combat until July 1943, the new generation of German vehicles meant the Red Army would need a new, more powerful main gun for their armoured formations."

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that the SU-100, SU-85 and SU-122 be merged into a single article. The vehicles are basically the same differing guns. Oberiko 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would make some sense to merge the SU-85 and SU-100 pages; I agree the SU-100 is really an upgrade of the SU-85. However, the SU-122 was developed for a completely different tactical role and deserves separate treatment. The SU-122 was an assault gun to support other arms (infantry and tanks) with direct HE fire. Its antiarmor capability was pretty weak. The SU-85/100 was a dedicated TD. DMorpheus 19:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the D-5T gun was an 85mm weapon mounted on the SU-85, KV-85 and very early T-34-85s. The D-25T was the 122mm mounted on the IS-2. DMorpheus 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References for SU-85 prototype names

The article currently lists names such as "SU-85-I" and "SU-85-II" for prototype versions. I've not been able to find these in any source other than the dubious JED site. I suspect they may be made up by that site. Normal Soviet practice was to give prototypes object numbers or A-numbers, not roman numeral-suffixes. Any additional references available? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional source. I'll update the article tomorrow. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ref still points nowhere and the JED site is unsupported by any other source of which I'm aware. DMorpheus (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source that I added: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/64/44/lang,en/

And you are cutting and pasting that content complete with typos and poor english usage. Interesting. Fair use? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I modified and corrected them. You would notice that if you would look closely at the text. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them ;) At any rate, is this fair usage? Have you gotten permission and given credit? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can say that I'm giving a credit by using footnotes in which I mention the source. The text can be even further modified if it's absolutely necessary. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a policy violation here. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll modify the text when I'll have time. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page will be blanked under wikipedia policy if this isn't dealt with. DMorpheus (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the nonsense with the numerous made-up variants. There were only two Soviet variants, the SU-85 and SU-85M. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar use: sources

"In addition to the Second World War, the SU-85 was used in combat by North Korea in the Korean War, by Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis, and by both Egypt and Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War (Perrett 1987:84).[dubious – discuss]"

I'm not sure this is a credible source or statement. SU-100s were used by Egypt and Syria - but SU-85s? I've also never heard of them being used in Korea. DPRK units had SU-76 and T-34-85. I suggest we find another source to back this claim. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have another source on this? DMorpheus (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please check elsewhere if possible. Perrett has either mistyped a name or transposed two paragraphs, so what he writes is a bit confusing (I've tried to interpret it conservatively). —Michael Z. 2008-05-02 18:40 Z

I haven't found a reference for this so I deleted it. DMorpheus (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

" Unike earlier Soviet self-propelled guns which were meant to serve as either assault guns or mobile anti-tank weapons, this vehicle was a dedicated tank destroyer. "

Can someone please explain the meaning of this sentence? How is a mobile anti-tank gun "unlike" a tank destroyer please? I understand how assault guns are different. I don't see the second distinction and question this content. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. If there is no distinction between these two terms I will revert back to a more sensible version of the sentence, i.e."Earlier Soviet self-propelled guns were meant to serve as either assault guns or mobile anti-tank weapons; the SU-85 fell into the second category" or something similar. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me. —Michael Z. 2008-08-22 04:15 z

Edit made. DMorpheus (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro it says: "The SU-85 (Samokhodnaya ustanovka 85) was a Soviet self-propelled gun used during World War II, based on the chassis of the T-34 medium tank. Earlier Soviet self-propelled guns were meant to serve as either assault guns, such as the SU-122, or as tank destroyers; the SU-85 fell into the latter category"

What is it now... is it a Tank destroyer type, or is it artillery? This sentence makes no sence. 86.82.5.180 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been there for 8 years. It makes sense. Self-propelled artillery includes both assault guns and TDs. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violations

Some of the content in this article may be too close a copy from the self-published site "battlefield.ru" cited in the sources(http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/64/44/lang,en/). The following are examples only and are not meant to be an exhaustive list of possible issues.

1. SU-85 article: "Simultaneously, the TsAKB design bureau, with its chief designer V.Grabin, started design work on changing the armament of the SU-122 to the existing 85 mm S-18 gun, which was originally developed for KV heavy tanks. Since the gun was already nearly obsolete, it was improved with a new mantlet and gun cradle. After these improvements were carried out, the S-18 gun was delivered to the Uralmash factory."

Battlefield.ru: "Simultaneously, the TsAKB (a design bureau lead by V.Grabin) has started their works on rearming SU-122 with already existed 85 mm S-18 gun. Initially, that has been developed for KV heavy tanks. A slightly improved, with new gun mantlet and new gun-cradle, S-18 was delivered to the Uralmash."

2. SU-85 article: "Initially the designers couldn't find a way to install the 85 mm S-18 gun in the casemate of the SU-122 because the gun breech was big. Uralmash stopped design work on the vehicle, because modifying the hull was extremely expensive at a time when simplicity and cheapness were very important to the Soviet military and heavy industry."

Battlefield.ru: "However the attempt to install it in the standard compartment of SU-122 was failed because of too big breech end of the gun. Uralmash tried to reject all further works cause it led to modernisation of a whole hull, thus it led to a big expenses."

3.SU-85 article: "SU-85-I[1], the first SU-85 prototype, used a standard hull of the SU-122 fitted with a new gun cradle and a new pig-nose-style ball mantlet for the gun. A proposed coaxial machine gun for this model was abandoned because of a lack of space"

Battlefield.ru: "The first one - the SU-85-I - had a standard hull of the SU-122, but had the new gun-cradle and the new gun mantlet. The initially proposed coaxial machine-gun was later removed because of lack of room. "

4.SU-85 article: "SU-85-IV[1], which was the second prototype, also used the SU-122 chassis, but it had a larger ball mantlet. Both prototypes used the problematic 85 mm S-18 gun."

Battlefield.ru: "The second one - the SU-85-IV - was based on the SU-122 as well, but had a modified front. Both self-propelled guns were armed with the 85 mm Tank Gun S-18."

I will tag the article.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess... I will have to rewrite it because you won't because of whatever. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this very page, above from April 08, shows that I gave you fair warning months ago regarding this policy. Your own talk page provides a similar trail. I have tried to fix many of the grammatical and sourcing problems with this article before tagging it. This has gone well beyond what I can or should do alone. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote that part months ago and everything seemed fine. Now suddenly you attack while I thought the whole dispute was done with. I have informed you on your talk page of me rewriting that part (It was back in May if I remember correctly). You should have informed me that my rewrite was "inadequate". Now we have to await a million years for an administrator to show up. Congratulations. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published Refs

I removed all references to the JED site. DMorpheus (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Su85.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Su85b" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Su85b has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 1 § Su85b until a consensus is reached. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]