Talk:Obiekt 279

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

Untitled[edit]

Removed part saying four track design is unique, it clearly isn't, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_%28tank%29

It is very unusual, and somewhat different from that of the T-28's (most obviously in that it was designed to confer an advantage, rather than to work around a major design flaw, that of building a 95-tonne AFV!).  —Michael Z. 2006-09-12 19:13 Z

What the heck is 'w'? Can someone disambiguate it? --71.125.61.11

Um, saying the one survivor is static isn't correct... JUST saw a video posted by Bovington showing it running/being restored.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:600:1590:8405:5367:708D:7CE2 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/100012705390618/videos/1051475979138612/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:600:1590:8405:5367:708D:7CE2 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Appearance[edit]

Should we mention this tank's appearance in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater? The 279 appears in rows in the Groznyj Grad fortress. If the player contacts SIGINT, they recieve a history lesson on the vehicle. I think it's an important reference, as it's how I found out about this interesting tank. PowderedToastMan 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound very notable to me. Have a look at the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_culture. —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:23 Z
Interesting how this "heavy tank" could have actually performed better than some of the contemporary and later Soviet MBTs (I'm looking at those T-55s and T-62s, in particular). A shame this project didn't go through. Darth Sidious 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production Cost[edit]

Can someone please list what the production cost is for the Prototype? I get annoyed whenever production cost is left out because the production cost is a pretty important detail for the creation of something. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I suggest the article's name be changed to Object 279, to coincide with other Soviet and Russian tank project articles, such as Object 785, Object 187 and Object 292. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Heavy?[edit]

If this vehicle weighed 60 tons as listed, then it hardly qualifies as a super-heavy tank - the article suggests over 75 tons as a rough benchmark. 60 tons is lighter than the conqueror tank and barely any heavier than the roughly contemporary Chieftain tank, which was an MBT/medium tankJellyfish dave (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, in no way should this tank be classified as a super heavy design. It was quite average in weight compared to most tanks of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production?[edit]

So, where are we getting 3 units from? As much as I want there to have been three built, this is the first I've heard of it.

Requested move 7 April 2022[edit]

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 section.

Result:
Moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– "Obiekt" is a more common transliteration of Объект (Russian) or Об'єкт (Ukrainian). I think WP:RUS would give either Obekt or Obyekt; WP:UKR would give Obiekt. Usage breakdown by author: OBIEKT, Steven Zaloga, Alexander Ludeke, James M. Warford, Mark A. Olinger; OBJECT, de:Richard Ogorkiewicz, Stephen Sewell (in collaborative works with Kinnear, Sewell reverts to "Obiekt;" OBYEKT: Mike Guardia.) Please note that I've included both Ukrainian (Object 416 and Object 490) and Russian tanks in the move request. Schierbecker (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The proposed spelling corresponds to the modified LOC romanization widely used in academic and popular-academic literature for both languages Ukrainian, as well as the Ukrainian national romanization which is recommended by WP:UKR. (WP:RUS is a non-systemic and indecipherable essay which should be disregarded and replaced.) —Michael Z. 03:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but "Object" isn't meant to be a transliteration. It is a translation. What's wrong with it? LeCharCanon 13:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an imperfect translation, because the word is not used this way in English. For example, a prototype for the M1 Abrams was the XM803, not the “Object 803.” So authors romanize it as they would any model name, designation, serial number. By the same principal, German vehicles are called Panzerkampfwagen II and Flakpanzer Gepard, not translated “Tank 2” and “Anti-Aircraft Cannon Tank Cheetah.” Some authors even gloss the word, or romanize the Russian abbreviation as ob. 279M.[1] From the evidence above, it looks like this name is much more commonly romanized than translated in WP:RS, and that is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. —Michael Z. 23:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "Object" isn't used this way in English, the Russians don't call the XM803 the Object 803 either, they call it the XM803. We call the 99式 the "Type 99", not "99 Shi" - there is no hard rule on how tank names are translated to English. Also, I disagree with the notion that it is more commonly romanized than translated. "Object" would be the common name in the tank community - it is how they are named in the three big tank games - War Thunder, World of Tanks, and Armored Warfare, and if you go on any tank discussion board (reddit, discord, forums, etc.) you will find that people call them "Objects", not "Obiekts". Or if you look at any internet articles, blog posts, etc., from well-known places in the community, most if not all of them use "Object". Soviet prototypes are affectionately known as "the Object tanks". As for the evidence, the list is not exhaustive, and doesn't really tell us what is more common, just what the individual authors prefer to call them. Even some Russian authors translate to "Object" in their books, such as Alexey Tarasov. By the way, James Warford uses "Object", as seen in an interview he did some years ago with Tank and AFV News, and posts he has made on forums. LeCharCanon 12:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't notice you were referring to WP:RS. Last point still stands, though. LeCharCanon 19:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. The modified LOC romanization of Russian объект would be obekt (standard LOC obʺekt). But I’m sticking to my support, following the sources. —Michael Z. 23:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Quite frankly, I find the proposed titles to be less ambiguous than the use of a generic English word like "object". BD2412 T 20:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obiekt_279&oldid=1204379083"