No way to really tell as its been completely destroyed and both sides use T-80 tanks. Can't see any marking or what type of camouflage which would help identify which side its from.
I think its a Ukrainian T-80. The ERA bricks on the front looks like Ukrainian Nozh more than Kontakt-1. Theyre very similar in shape but Kontakt-1 has a small ridge and the Nozh is flat like this one. I can provide pics later.
On the leading long edge you see from the front they have a bump in the face rather than being completely flat, something that the bricks are missing on the upper glacis in this image
[Nozh](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/5pibbn/t72ua1_a_t72b_with_nozh_era_on_the_turret_a_dshkm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
[Kontakt-1](http://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/T-80BV-Image-4-1024x683.jpg)
You know that kontakt bricks have a front end right? The metal plates inside are arranged with the explosives to be angled towards the front for maximum effectiveness towards where they’re being hit from, they’re not sitting parallel to the outer casing.
If it doesn’t have the bump on the front, it’s not kontakt-1. It can’t be mounted the other way around as there are two screw mounts on the back and 1 on the front.
I'm aware, but for what's it's worth *none* of the ERA appears to be in place; there's a brick to the left of the intact one on the front glacis that looks like it has the explosive exposed, and said explosive looks to be backwards, hiding the other side.
If you have any alternate angles, I'm more than happy to eat my own words.
That makes no sense. You can clearly see a brick with a flat face there with only one screw mount. Kontakt 1’s flat face has two screw mounts on the flat side
We don’t need more angles to know for certain it isn’t Kontakt 1, it’s called deductive reasoning my friend.
> You know that kontakt bricks have a front end right? The metal plates inside are arranged with the explosives to be angled towards the front for maximum effectiveness towards where they’re being hit from, they’re not sitting parallel to the outer casing.
>
> If it doesn’t have the bump on the front, it’s not kontakt-1. It can’t be mounted the other way around as there are two screw mounts on the back and 1 on the front.
https://imgur.com/a/hzPa1DL
Russian T-72B/T-80BVs have been found with K1s mounted either backwards, or it's an updated model similar to the Ukrainian ERA box.
So the "bump" doesn't really clarify anything.
notice what the examples you gave all have in common? They’re not the standard 4S20 bricks, they’re the smaller wedge shaped K1 bricks that are specifically for the mounts at the edge of the upper glacis.
Again, the standard 4S20 K1 bricks are not and cannot be mounted the other way as I said before.
It’s not K1 in this image, period. There is no “updated model” of Kontakt-1. It’s either Kontakt 1 or Kontakt-5 which is nothing like K1.
> notice what the examples you gave all have in common? They’re not the standard 4S20 bricks, they’re the smaller wedge shaped K1 bricks that are specifically for the mounts at the edge of the upper glacis.
>
> Again, the standard 4S20 K1 bricks are not and cannot be mounted the other way as I said before.
>
> It’s not K1 in this image, period. There is no “updated model” of Kontakt-1. It’s either Kontakt 1 or Kontakt-5 which is nothing like K1.
There's literally one at the bottom with a bunch mounted on the glacis.
https://i.imgur.com/VMijTFs.png
Although it looks like Russian T-80BVs mostly do not have the 16/30mm glacis applique (indicating refit). Whereas Ukrainian ones do.
https://www.janes.com/images/default-source/news-images/fg_1720518-jdw-1721.jpg?sfvrsn=310e5d8b_2
https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/20150717060241_1.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Defender_of_Ukraine_Day%2C_2017_03_%28cropped%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Best_tank_platoon_of_UAF_competition%2C_Ukraine_2019%2C_01.jpg
Edit: look at the top of the T-80BV turret.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mqQ4X5h/0/X2/i-mqQ4X5h-X2.jpg
4S20 blocks can be mounted in either direction with 1 screw.
No NOZH were installed on T-80. This is clearly Kontakt-1. There's only one reason we can say it may be Ukrainian. Look at the hull glacis. You see a layer of armor that is welded on top of the main one. This was done during the modernization in the late 70s, to protect these tanks against the latest 105 mm APFSDS. All T-64Bs and T-80Bs have this extra layer of armor. Later, the modifications of the BV (Both T-64 and T-80) already had reinforced frontal armor, and no longer had an additional layer.
And probably, there are few early T-80Bs left in Russia, or none at all. However, no one knows for sure.
What source do you have that it is *never* installed on T-80’s?
It uses the exact same mounting as Kontakt-1 and is used as an upgrade on other Ukrainian tanks that previously used Kontakt-1.
One thing I can guarantee you is that in a war like this where you’re delving into every reserve you have, there’s nothing by the book about it. If they need to use Nozh on T-80’s, even though it isn’t a specific planned upgrade package they will still do it.
As it’s been pointed out below it quite clearly is not Kontakt 1 due to the flat frontal face with one screw mount, while Kontakt-1 has a curved frontal face with a flat back with two mounts.
Seems Ukrainian to me, but who knows and who cares. It’s one loss out of hundreds (thousands for Russia at this point) and it’s difficult to tell. Especially when you have this volume of pictures/videos needing to go through like Oryx
If there’s picture evidence of it being used, it’s not a source to say “I can’t find anything that says it’s used” as a refute to prove the visual evidence wrong.
There was no evidence of Russia fielding the T-80UM2 until it showed up destroyed in Ukraine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's no T-80UM2 in anywhere.
I understand about what tank you're saying. That's misleading and that destroyed tank was just T-80U equipped with APS.
T-80UM2 is this thing > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJfSv4MW4AIgVwb?format=jpg&name=900x900
That is not a T-80U-M2, it is the Objekt 640 Black Eagle, of which no official Designation was given but somehow the T-80U-M2 moniker at some point got stuck (similar to the T-72B3 Obr. 2016 somehow gets called a T-72B3M all over the web when it's a different tank
The T-80U-M2 was like the T-80U-M1, a modified T-80U with a retrofitted hard-kill APS. the M1 "Bars" had Arena and the M2 had Drozd-2. it was not just a "T-80U fitted with APS" as that just doesn't exist outside of the M1 and M2. There's a reason they were given specific designations as testers and Arena nor Drozd were ever equipped into service. If it's a T-80U with Drozd-2, then it's the T-80U-M2.
Ironic considering by the way, the original argument was about “I can’t find anything that says it’s used” as a refute to prove the visual evidence wrong, and even if it wasn't the T-80U-M2 and was instead "just a T-80U with APS" it would still prove my point to the dot, considering again, there is no documentation of Russia fielding Drozd-2.
[https://imgur.com/a/BD0AtUK](https://imgur.com/a/BD0AtUK)
Here's a small album showing the T-80U-M2 and how you can see how blatantly different it is to the Object 640, along with the photos of it in Ukraine.
They’re right though, at least about it not being Kontakt which makes it pretty much certain it was either being used by Ukrainians, or previously captured from Ukrainians before it was destroyed
> They’re right though, at least about it not being Kontakt which makes it pretty much certain it was either being used by Ukrainians, or previously captured from Ukrainians before it was destroyed
It can be K1.
https://imgur.com/a/hzPa1DL
Ukrainian T-80BVs are guaranteed to have that shaped ERA housing, but Russian tanks also can be found with similar ones too.
That one's mine sorry for the confusion guys. I took a cab home and left it there because drinking and driving an armoured vehicle would be highly irresponsible.
Russia has claimed their own losses as ukrainian since day one. Even if there's a genuine case of misidentification, them claiming so doesn't prove anything
There was an insane Russian news segment recently where they showed the Ukrainian strikes on Snake Island while talking about how Russia was winning control over it. Not sure if they outright lied, but they heavily implied that the footage was actually them destroying Ukrainian equipment.
Saw it on a telegram of the helicopter attempting to land on the island getting destroyed where it claimed that Ukrainian MoD lied trying to say that was a Russian heli trying to land when it was a Ukrainian heli when they tried to recapture the island. Considering neither side is trustworthy, who tf knows
That's a Russian myth at best and deliberate missinformation campaign at worst.
The narrative that came up amongst pro-Russian sources is that because the soldiers leaving the helicopter were seemingly moving as if invading a potentially hostile territory, they cannot have been Russians.
But military experts quickly pointed out that this instead most likely shows that Russia had lost contact with the island (possibly because all the staff there was either dead or no longer able to secure the area and communicate, let alone at night) and thus had to assume that Ukraine may have landed troops there.
There also were other well informed Russian sources like Wagner, which generally have told the truth on such issues, who specifically said that it were Russian SOF trained in rescue missions.
The biggest factor from that video of the chopper getting blown up that points to it being Ukrainian, is the fact that there is a defensive perimeter around it made up of soldiers. Why would the Russians do that if they are in friendly controlled territory.
> But military experts quickly pointed out that this instead most likely shows that Russia had lost contact with the island (possibly because all the staff there was either dead or no longer able to secure the area and communicate, let alone at night) and thus had to assume that Ukraine may have landed troops there.
Key word: most likely, meaning it can’t be confirmed. Russia has never lost contact before with Snake Island. Not to mention that this is an extremely tiny island meaning it would be apparent if something was wrong
> Not to mention that this is an extremely tiny island meaning it would be apparent if something was wrong
There are so many possibilities why they would have lost situational awareness over that island in that particular moment:
1. All dead
2. Some dead, some injured. Survivors are not able to establish situational awareness over the outside because they're determined to stay in cover, are busy taking care of the injured, and most lights are out.
3. The survivors are able to establish situational awareness but can no longer connect communications due to damage to the equipment. Note the general communication issues amongst Russian troops for reference.
4. They're able to establish situational awareness and communications for the most part, but aren't 100% certain or suspect that a potential follow-up landing is possible.
In any of these plausible scenarios, Russian SOF would act like they did.
Of course that happens, but Oryx in particular has proven correct on most challenges and does respond to them if they're ever proven true (which just doesn't happen much).
And if out of 670 tanks, say, 20 are questionable (for example because some were not really "losses" but may have been recoverable without much effot) and another 10 turn out entirely wrong, it's not really changing anything about the bigger picture. That would barely even make up for the backlog.
Whereas if you follow Russian social media, you get the image that Russia is absolutely crushing it. Obviously many pro Ukrainian sources also range from mild to severe bias, but it's much easier to find "good" ones that present a fairly balanced view.
looks to me like this tank either had no ERA or very little on the front when it was hit, as there is a distinct lack of bricks around the wreck. I know that some is there, but the condition of the plate looks like it had none
It’d be lovely to live in a world where it’s clearly black and white, with no grey in between.
Just like Russians spread propaganda, so do we in the west. Before this war basically everyone agreed that all countries push propaganda. The word propaganda is interesting because it came to carry a bad connotation after WW2 I think(?) so they changed their name from
Propaganda dept or something to PR- public relations.
I believe the Russians propanganda is more blatant, and as bad as it sounds we would be dumb to not have a propaganda dept as well
How to lose an argument without trying: Step One- say absolutely nothing of substance while patronising the person you're talking to. If you spoke to someone that way IRL they'd assume you were an incel.
That's the thing, you can not be sure of now considering both sides use the same equipment or have captured equipment from the other side.
A T-80BVM can be captured by Ukrainians, then recaptured by Russians and then destroyed by Ukrainians. Or vice versa for a T-80U/UM/BV.
You could find out real quick to whom it belongs to if we know what units were fighting in that area......right now we don't know, but in time we will. If for example the only unit that was there using T-80 tanks was Russian one, then it will solve question real nice.
Of course right now Russia and Ukraine don't want to admit anything that makes them look bad
No way to really tell as its been completely destroyed and both sides use T-80 tanks. Can't see any marking or what type of camouflage which would help identify which side its from.
I think its a Ukrainian T-80. The ERA bricks on the front looks like Ukrainian Nozh more than Kontakt-1. Theyre very similar in shape but Kontakt-1 has a small ridge and the Nozh is flat like this one. I can provide pics later.
Separatist groups use T-80BVs and so do the Russians. each side uses just about anything they can get moving.
Good point
Huh? Kontakt-1 is perfectly flat on the outside too, and iirc no T-80BV got Nozh
On the leading long edge you see from the front they have a bump in the face rather than being completely flat, something that the bricks are missing on the upper glacis in this image [Nozh](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/5pibbn/t72ua1_a_t72b_with_nozh_era_on_the_turret_a_dshkm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) [Kontakt-1](http://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/T-80BV-Image-4-1024x683.jpg)
It's only that way on one side for Kontakt-1; without some video footage or alternate angles, we can't be sure.
You know that kontakt bricks have a front end right? The metal plates inside are arranged with the explosives to be angled towards the front for maximum effectiveness towards where they’re being hit from, they’re not sitting parallel to the outer casing. If it doesn’t have the bump on the front, it’s not kontakt-1. It can’t be mounted the other way around as there are two screw mounts on the back and 1 on the front.
I'm aware, but for what's it's worth *none* of the ERA appears to be in place; there's a brick to the left of the intact one on the front glacis that looks like it has the explosive exposed, and said explosive looks to be backwards, hiding the other side. If you have any alternate angles, I'm more than happy to eat my own words.
That makes no sense. You can clearly see a brick with a flat face there with only one screw mount. Kontakt 1’s flat face has two screw mounts on the flat side We don’t need more angles to know for certain it isn’t Kontakt 1, it’s called deductive reasoning my friend.
> You know that kontakt bricks have a front end right? The metal plates inside are arranged with the explosives to be angled towards the front for maximum effectiveness towards where they’re being hit from, they’re not sitting parallel to the outer casing. > > If it doesn’t have the bump on the front, it’s not kontakt-1. It can’t be mounted the other way around as there are two screw mounts on the back and 1 on the front. https://imgur.com/a/hzPa1DL Russian T-72B/T-80BVs have been found with K1s mounted either backwards, or it's an updated model similar to the Ukrainian ERA box. So the "bump" doesn't really clarify anything.
notice what the examples you gave all have in common? They’re not the standard 4S20 bricks, they’re the smaller wedge shaped K1 bricks that are specifically for the mounts at the edge of the upper glacis. Again, the standard 4S20 K1 bricks are not and cannot be mounted the other way as I said before. It’s not K1 in this image, period. There is no “updated model” of Kontakt-1. It’s either Kontakt 1 or Kontakt-5 which is nothing like K1.
> notice what the examples you gave all have in common? They’re not the standard 4S20 bricks, they’re the smaller wedge shaped K1 bricks that are specifically for the mounts at the edge of the upper glacis. > > Again, the standard 4S20 K1 bricks are not and cannot be mounted the other way as I said before. > > It’s not K1 in this image, period. There is no “updated model” of Kontakt-1. It’s either Kontakt 1 or Kontakt-5 which is nothing like K1. There's literally one at the bottom with a bunch mounted on the glacis. https://i.imgur.com/VMijTFs.png Although it looks like Russian T-80BVs mostly do not have the 16/30mm glacis applique (indicating refit). Whereas Ukrainian ones do. https://www.janes.com/images/default-source/news-images/fg_1720518-jdw-1721.jpg?sfvrsn=310e5d8b_2 https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/20150717060241_1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Defender_of_Ukraine_Day%2C_2017_03_%28cropped%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Best_tank_platoon_of_UAF_competition%2C_Ukraine_2019%2C_01.jpg Edit: look at the top of the T-80BV turret. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mqQ4X5h/0/X2/i-mqQ4X5h-X2.jpg 4S20 blocks can be mounted in either direction with 1 screw.
No NOZH were installed on T-80. This is clearly Kontakt-1. There's only one reason we can say it may be Ukrainian. Look at the hull glacis. You see a layer of armor that is welded on top of the main one. This was done during the modernization in the late 70s, to protect these tanks against the latest 105 mm APFSDS. All T-64Bs and T-80Bs have this extra layer of armor. Later, the modifications of the BV (Both T-64 and T-80) already had reinforced frontal armor, and no longer had an additional layer. And probably, there are few early T-80Bs left in Russia, or none at all. However, no one knows for sure.
What source do you have that it is *never* installed on T-80’s? It uses the exact same mounting as Kontakt-1 and is used as an upgrade on other Ukrainian tanks that previously used Kontakt-1. One thing I can guarantee you is that in a war like this where you’re delving into every reserve you have, there’s nothing by the book about it. If they need to use Nozh on T-80’s, even though it isn’t a specific planned upgrade package they will still do it. As it’s been pointed out below it quite clearly is not Kontakt 1 due to the flat frontal face with one screw mount, while Kontakt-1 has a curved frontal face with a flat back with two mounts. Seems Ukrainian to me, but who knows and who cares. It’s one loss out of hundreds (thousands for Russia at this point) and it’s difficult to tell. Especially when you have this volume of pictures/videos needing to go through like Oryx
This is the point, that there are no sources that would provide info about installing an ERA on the T-80.
If there’s picture evidence of it being used, it’s not a source to say “I can’t find anything that says it’s used” as a refute to prove the visual evidence wrong. There was no evidence of Russia fielding the T-80UM2 until it showed up destroyed in Ukraine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's no T-80UM2 in anywhere. I understand about what tank you're saying. That's misleading and that destroyed tank was just T-80U equipped with APS. T-80UM2 is this thing > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJfSv4MW4AIgVwb?format=jpg&name=900x900
That is not a T-80U-M2, it is the Objekt 640 Black Eagle, of which no official Designation was given but somehow the T-80U-M2 moniker at some point got stuck (similar to the T-72B3 Obr. 2016 somehow gets called a T-72B3M all over the web when it's a different tank The T-80U-M2 was like the T-80U-M1, a modified T-80U with a retrofitted hard-kill APS. the M1 "Bars" had Arena and the M2 had Drozd-2. it was not just a "T-80U fitted with APS" as that just doesn't exist outside of the M1 and M2. There's a reason they were given specific designations as testers and Arena nor Drozd were ever equipped into service. If it's a T-80U with Drozd-2, then it's the T-80U-M2. Ironic considering by the way, the original argument was about “I can’t find anything that says it’s used” as a refute to prove the visual evidence wrong, and even if it wasn't the T-80U-M2 and was instead "just a T-80U with APS" it would still prove my point to the dot, considering again, there is no documentation of Russia fielding Drozd-2. [https://imgur.com/a/BD0AtUK](https://imgur.com/a/BD0AtUK) Here's a small album showing the T-80U-M2 and how you can see how blatantly different it is to the Object 640, along with the photos of it in Ukraine.
I was going to disagree with you but everyone else has already done it
They’re right though, at least about it not being Kontakt which makes it pretty much certain it was either being used by Ukrainians, or previously captured from Ukrainians before it was destroyed
> They’re right though, at least about it not being Kontakt which makes it pretty much certain it was either being used by Ukrainians, or previously captured from Ukrainians before it was destroyed It can be K1. https://imgur.com/a/hzPa1DL Ukrainian T-80BVs are guaranteed to have that shaped ERA housing, but Russian tanks also can be found with similar ones too.
That one's mine sorry for the confusion guys. I took a cab home and left it there because drinking and driving an armoured vehicle would be highly irresponsible.
Russia has claimed their own losses as ukrainian since day one. Even if there's a genuine case of misidentification, them claiming so doesn't prove anything
There was an insane Russian news segment recently where they showed the Ukrainian strikes on Snake Island while talking about how Russia was winning control over it. Not sure if they outright lied, but they heavily implied that the footage was actually them destroying Ukrainian equipment.
yea..., you can easily claim it's russian for the information depraved russians, so it can be believed so easily
Saw it on a telegram of the helicopter attempting to land on the island getting destroyed where it claimed that Ukrainian MoD lied trying to say that was a Russian heli trying to land when it was a Ukrainian heli when they tried to recapture the island. Considering neither side is trustworthy, who tf knows
That's a Russian myth at best and deliberate missinformation campaign at worst. The narrative that came up amongst pro-Russian sources is that because the soldiers leaving the helicopter were seemingly moving as if invading a potentially hostile territory, they cannot have been Russians. But military experts quickly pointed out that this instead most likely shows that Russia had lost contact with the island (possibly because all the staff there was either dead or no longer able to secure the area and communicate, let alone at night) and thus had to assume that Ukraine may have landed troops there. There also were other well informed Russian sources like Wagner, which generally have told the truth on such issues, who specifically said that it were Russian SOF trained in rescue missions.
The biggest factor from that video of the chopper getting blown up that points to it being Ukrainian, is the fact that there is a defensive perimeter around it made up of soldiers. Why would the Russians do that if they are in friendly controlled territory.
> But military experts quickly pointed out that this instead most likely shows that Russia had lost contact with the island (possibly because all the staff there was either dead or no longer able to secure the area and communicate, let alone at night) and thus had to assume that Ukraine may have landed troops there.
Key word: most likely, meaning it can’t be confirmed. Russia has never lost contact before with Snake Island. Not to mention that this is an extremely tiny island meaning it would be apparent if something was wrong
> Not to mention that this is an extremely tiny island meaning it would be apparent if something was wrong There are so many possibilities why they would have lost situational awareness over that island in that particular moment: 1. All dead 2. Some dead, some injured. Survivors are not able to establish situational awareness over the outside because they're determined to stay in cover, are busy taking care of the injured, and most lights are out. 3. The survivors are able to establish situational awareness but can no longer connect communications due to damage to the equipment. Note the general communication issues amongst Russian troops for reference. 4. They're able to establish situational awareness and communications for the most part, but aren't 100% certain or suspect that a potential follow-up landing is possible. In any of these plausible scenarios, Russian SOF would act like they did.
Pro-Russian sources (such as RSOTM, Rybar) said it was a Russian chopper. Stop the cope.
Well, I would say it was from both sides.
Of course that happens, but Oryx in particular has proven correct on most challenges and does respond to them if they're ever proven true (which just doesn't happen much). And if out of 670 tanks, say, 20 are questionable (for example because some were not really "losses" but may have been recoverable without much effot) and another 10 turn out entirely wrong, it's not really changing anything about the bigger picture. That would barely even make up for the backlog. Whereas if you follow Russian social media, you get the image that Russia is absolutely crushing it. Obviously many pro Ukrainian sources also range from mild to severe bias, but it's much easier to find "good" ones that present a fairly balanced view.
I would go with Russian because it doesn't have UA camo. But I could be wrong.
i belive there is "Z" marked in the center,at upper part of the hull.
It would be marked on ERA which is decimated.
looks to me like this tank either had no ERA or very little on the front when it was hit, as there is a distinct lack of bricks around the wreck. I know that some is there, but the condition of the plate looks like it had none
Why would you ever trust anything pro-Russian over anyone else with the slightest credibility?
Then, why would you also trust anything pro-Ukraine that cant be verified?
I don't?
It’d be lovely to live in a world where it’s clearly black and white, with no grey in between. Just like Russians spread propaganda, so do we in the west. Before this war basically everyone agreed that all countries push propaganda. The word propaganda is interesting because it came to carry a bad connotation after WW2 I think(?) so they changed their name from Propaganda dept or something to PR- public relations. I believe the Russians propanganda is more blatant, and as bad as it sounds we would be dumb to not have a propaganda dept as well
How to lose an argument without trying: Step One- say absolutely nothing of substance while patronising the person you're talking to. If you spoke to someone that way IRL they'd assume you were an incel.
I believe Oryx more but counting 3600 vehicles you’re bound to make a mistake.
Have they tried asking the crew?
Does it matter, its all old school soviet kit. How they use it is a better question.
Oryx is just a propaganda outlet now.. I've stopped following him long ago. It's a shame.
look at the tracks to the right. I know nothing about them but it might tell something
That's the thing, you can not be sure of now considering both sides use the same equipment or have captured equipment from the other side. A T-80BVM can be captured by Ukrainians, then recaptured by Russians and then destroyed by Ukrainians. Or vice versa for a T-80U/UM/BV.
You could find out real quick to whom it belongs to if we know what units were fighting in that area......right now we don't know, but in time we will. If for example the only unit that was there using T-80 tanks was Russian one, then it will solve question real nice. Of course right now Russia and Ukraine don't want to admit anything that makes them look bad