Talk:List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces

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:

• 6B43.jpg

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

• PKM machine gun in storage.jpeg

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

• Btm 3.jpg

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

Another photo for Uran-9

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

Revival of the T-62

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

Extreme inconsistency of numbers - please fix

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

• the individual articles for equipment such as the 2S7 Pion (says Russia has 60 of them and gives numbers of 250 or possibly more produced)
• the List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces (says 100 active, 260 reserve)
• the list of equipment in the Russian Ground Forces article (used to say Russia has 5000 of them, changed to match first article)

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

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

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

There's also an (unsourced) claim of 1500 T-90 in service with the Russian army, while in the same column, it is stated Russia has only 350. 212.86.49.96 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

BMD-4M and other BMD are missing

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

The T-90M loss rate.

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

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

Missing common artillery piece

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

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

Add images of Shahed 136 drone

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

Oryx is no relible source

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

Your "Gerans" are licensed made Shaheds. Licensed production would still have them listed under Iranian origin. 2601:18C:8C01:B10:ADCE:95D3:C3F2:3C (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, the Harrier AV-8B should be exclusively put under a British flag, since it's an original UK design. Right?

Topic author have my full support regarding this issue. Please update that info if it's not. 139.47.80.100 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian losses of equipment in Ukraine

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

Which is very unreliable, to say the least. More a propaganda site than actual informative and objective. I suggest to search for other, more trusted sites, if we want to comply with Wikipedia standards. 139.47.80.100 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no better site. All losses claimed by Oryx are backed up with photographic evidence. 176.10.187.200 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx includes most losses, but the identification as russian or ukrainian is not objective, and has no methodology behind it.

Usage of Oryx as a source is not ideal. Franfran2424 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly why is this even in the details. Shouldn't any details be about the equipment itself, number produced, problems with it idk. What other military equipment has a list of how many were lost in a specific conflict? Gabecube45 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs a serious update

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

Orphaned references in List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces

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

Reference named "ARES":

• From MRO-A: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
• From Pantsir missile system: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. p. 78. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 December 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
• From List of equipment used by Russian separatist forces of the war in Donbas: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
• From PPSh-41: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
• From 2S19 Msta: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 December 2014. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
• From AK-74: Ferguson, Jonathan & Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (November 2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine" (PDF). Armament Research Services (ARES). Retrieved 26 October 2021.
• From KSVK 12.7: ARES http://armamentresearch.com/Uploads/Research%20Report%20No.%203%20-%20Raising%20Red%20Flags.pdf. Retrieved 26 October 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• From Orsis T-5000: Lyamin, Yuri; Smallwood, Michael (May 29, 2014). "Iranian AM50 and Russian ORSIS T-5000 rifles in Iraq". armamentresearch.com. Archived from the original on 23 November 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
• From TT pistol: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (2014). "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. (Research Report No. 3)" (PDF). ARES. p. 86. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
• From Russian people's militias in Ukraine: Ferguson, Jonathan; Jenzen-Jones, N.R. (18 November 2014). "ARES Research Report No.3 "Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine"" (PDF). Armament Research Services (ARES). Retrieved 4 February 2015.

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

NAF pistol? Clarification needed.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

add the Lebedev pistol

Matias Solimo Grobnick (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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

T-14

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

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

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

• T-72B3M-VDayRehearsal.jpg (discussion)
• Т-62М-Army-2022.jpg (discussion)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

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

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but another problem with that entry has been introduced.

It was:

|-

|[[PBU-100]]

we|[[File:Army2016-354.jpg|170px]]

|[[Drilling rig|Drilling vehicle]]

|''Unknown''

|{{RUS}}

|

Now it is:

|-

|[[PBU-100]]

 

|[[File:Army2016-354.jpg|170px]]

|[[Drilling rig|Drilling vehicle]]

{{RUS}}

|

A blank line was added, but the bigger problem is the removal of the |''Unknown'' line. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

keep losses in the list?

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

The pro ukrainians writing here need to keep the narrative that only russia loses equipments. They don't even use their only-favorite-pro-Ukrainian source Oryx to count Ukraine's losses. All articles related to the war are so heavily biased that it should not be called Wikipedia but Ukropedia or Oryxpedia. 186.28.0.28 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's gonna take about 10 years after the war ends for Wikipedia to even remotely resemble a usable, reasonable source of information on anything relating to this war. Arguing here is a fool's errand, trust me, I tried. It has simply become a NATO fan club. They actually used to have an entire article called "Mariupol Massacre," with 20,000 as the number of "massacred" civilians. I still keep a screen shot of it (and other blunders) for posterity. 93.86.252.166 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the problem with keeping Russian losses? No-one is obliged to record Ukrainian losses. You can add them if you want to. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My point was that they are so inaccurate that it would only make sense to list them after the war. Onesgje9g334 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oryx is more likely to undercount than anything. Do you think it's more accurate to pretend that Russia still has all that equipment? Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No, these losses are real, but I just wanted it more organized Onesgje9g334 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "more organized". Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Russia equipment

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

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

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

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

 Done Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 00:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Btr 82 missing

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

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

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

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

 Done Mr. Komori (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

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

Article written in 2022. But retrieved on July 2023?

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

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

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

Mosin-Nagant incorrectly listed

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

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

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

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

VSS not in use since ratnik

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

BTR-80 quantity section

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

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

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

I have updated losses from Oryx, you are welcome to do so in future. I don't think we can update storage numbers as they're based on satellite imagery and likely to be inaccurate. Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. You have The Military Balance numbers, which is the same source as was used for the 2021 numbers that figure in the article. But for some reason nobody updates this article with TMB2024 numbers. 66.81.171.54 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Military Balance is an annual publication. Oryx is updated every few days. The fact that numerous other publications rely on Oryx data means it is a WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

IISS military balance 2024 is already published, it should use that now. Ukrainian current equipment list are using military balance instead of Oryx, even though oryx also have section for Ukrainian losses, Russia should have used it too, with the exemption of equipment that is not covered by military balance, which oryx could have been used. Even if wikipedia insist that oryx is a reliable source, at least someone carefully analyze their claim and the supposed evidence and properly summarize it on wiki instead of just parroting it. Dauzlee (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)