User talk:SuperTank17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello SuperTank17! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ~~~~
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Please confirm current operators

Hi SuperT. I noticed that you are sorting out the operators lists in tank articles into "current" and "former operators".

Note that many of these lists have been compiled from diverse sources and may be incomplete. Specifically, just because some operators are listed as having given up their tanks, doesn't mean that all of the others still operate them. Before applying these two categories to all of the the entries in a list, please first confirm that all of the current operators still are current.

Thanks for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2007-07-10 00:43 Z

[edit] Re: Your removal of Poland in WWII article.

I removed Poland some time ago as result of consensus. Please see the article's talk page and respective archives. — Dorvaq (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-70 tank

It's states clearly in the article that T-70 was used after the war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs)

That is true but that doesn't make it a "post-war tank". The T-34 was used in 1996, but that doesn't make it a modern tank. The T-70 was not developed or produced after WWII, nor was it even used in a tank role after 1943. Also stated clearly in the article T-70:
  • "By 1942, light tanks were considered inadequate by the Red Army"
  • "Production ended in October 1943"
  • "All light tank production was cancelled in October 1943"
  • "In November 1943 ... light tanks were replaced"
  • "[they] continued to be used in self-propelled artillery and some other units"
  • "The T-70 remained in service until 1948"
In summary, the T-70 was the tail end of a concept already considered obsolete in the middle of WWII. That it was relegated to non-tank roles for three peace-time years does not mean that it represents any post-war concept of a tank. The T-70 was a WWII tank. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 01:52 Z

[edit] List of armoured fighting vehicles by country

Hi.

Trying to cover each nation in the list of armoured fighting vehicles by country in such a high level of detail would be impossible. It would turn the simple list into a super-long, unmanageable, inconsistent, and unreadable mass of text. I'm going to continue paring that list down until it matches the criteria listed at the top of the article.

Your additions are impressive. I suggest you separate the list of Polish AFVs into an independent annotated list article: List of Polish armoured fighting vehicles. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), for some advice, and also Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.

One more suggestion: look over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), especially the section about how much to link. It's distracting for both readers and editors when over a dozen instances of armoured and car are wikilinked. Just link armoured car the first time it occurs in the section, and then it will stand out—then the reader has direct access to a whole article explaining what armoured cars are, and there is absolutely no need to link plain English words like car at all. Your list of 9 tankettes has 18 links to the article tankette!—the signal-to-noise ratio is so small that the real information is becoming completely obscured. —Michael Z. 2007-08-04 16:26 Z

New name for that article has been suggested here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is confirmed

It is confirmed that New Iraqi Army uses T-55

If it is confirmed somewhere, then we should confirm it in turn. Please cite the source when entering figures into articles. —Michael Z. 2007-08-18 00:32 Z

[edit] Please cite your sources

When you have a verifiable source for some information which you add to an article, please add a citation. This is especially important in specific facts and figures, for example, your recent addition to T-72. Don't just cite it in your edit summary, but in the article.

Any figures without a reference are at risk of being removed by another editor, sooner or later. —Michael Z. 2007-08-27 19:27 Z

[edit] T-62 in Czechoslovakia

Hallo I added my info about this in discussion under T-62 page - there I tried to explain why I think that Czechoslovakia didn't produce and use T-62. If you don't believe me - can you find any photo of T-62 with Czech/Slovak markings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.48.24 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

- There were some discussions about production of T-62 in Czechoslovakia some time ago and answers of military archive and former tank producers refused that as foreign myth.89.176.48.17 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PT-76 in Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia bought only one PT-76 for testing but army refused it so Czech Republic and Slovakia didn't used it. That polish source is wrong in this matter - btw. czech army gives numbers about its main weapons and also czech military archive is very opened to public.89.176.48.17 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to T-55

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, SuperTank17! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-80 nick-names

According to my Russian and Ukrainian sources, "Beryoza" is a Ukrainian nick-name for the T-80UD. Some Western sources say that the T-80 is called "Kobra" but this is only true for the "Kobra"-equipped T-80B (and BV), which is logical. Since the command tanks BK and BKV are not fitted with the "Kobra" system, it's very unlikely that they carry this nick-name. The trouble with sources is that a LOT of incorrect info is around (even some Russian books simply contain the same incorrect text as books from Jane's and Zaloga). This info is repeated again and again on many websites, but that doesn't make it true. Regards. dendirrek (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] T-55

Hello. Before I edit the T-55 page I wanted to discuss some things with you. I was checking out the page once again and discovered several errors. The reason for this are, in my opinion, two of your sources. The first is "Gary", who simply (illegaly) copied text from older (!) Jane's books on his website. One of the errors here is that he (or rather: Jane's) writes that the Polish T-55AM "Merida" is a modernization of the T-55AMV. As we both know, the T-55AM has passive "brow" armour like the Russian T-55M/AM and the Czech T-55AM2/AM2B, not the "Kontakt-1" ERA of the T-55AMV. The other one is "kr.blog.yahoo", the autor of which also simply (illegaly) copied the content of JED [1] on his website. Now, while in general JED is a very good source of information, it contains also a lot of errors. One problem with JED is that the author, Mr Webster, invents his own names for vehicles that have no names of their own. Romania for example has three versions of the upgraded T-55 (Russian, Czech and Romanian) and calls all 3 of them simply T-55AM. In JED you'll find the designator T-55AM2R for the Romanian upgrade which is not correct. Same for the T-55AM2P which also doesn't exist; the Polish upgrade is officialy known as T-55AM "Merida". As a result, on the Wiki T-55 page some models are mentioned twice: once with their correct designator and once with their old NATO name or with a "bogus" name from JED or someone else. I let you know later what other remarks I have. Best regards. dendirrek (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we have the same goals :-) Here are some of the corrections/additions that I have:

1. The SPK-5 (not SKP-5) is a variant of the T-34, not the T-55. 2. The crane vehicle that is based on the T-54 (not T-55) is called SPK-12G (samokhodniy pod’yomniy kran), not SPG-12. 3. Some Ob'yekt numbers that are missing: OT-54 = Ob.481, BTS-2 = Ob.9, IMR = Ob.696, MTU-20 = Ob.602, ZSU-57-2 = Ob.500, T-54 Model 1949 = Ob.137R, T-54 Model 1951 = Ob.137Sh, T-54M/AM = Ob.137M. The Ob.483 was a planned variant of the T-54B and the Ob.137ML was a prototype of the T-54 with ATGM "Malyutka". There was also an Ob.155ML. 4. I know the T-55AD and T-55AD-1 (not: AD1) but I couldn't find any information about the T-55AMD or AMD1. 5. MT-55A = mostni tank (bridge layer tank), VT-55A = vyprošt’ovací tank (recovery tank). 6. MIC from Sudan (Website MIC) produces several Russian, Iranian and Chinese systems under licence. Some of the early obtained information (as mentioned in the T-55 article) is incorrect. The Abu Fatma is a copy of the Russian SPH 2S1 (Russia), the Al-Basheer is the Chinese Type 85M-II tank, the Al-Zubair 1 is the Iranian Type 72Z and the Al-Zubair 2 is the Chinese Type 59D tank. The T-55 copy that is produced by MIC is called Digna. 7. As mentioned earlier, the T-55AM2/AM2B is a Czech version (and is listed in the article). You should remove the entries T-55AM2 and -AM2PB from the chapter "Modernization" and change the names "T-55AM2PB" under the two photographs in "T-55AM2B". Also, please remove the text "(T-55AM2P)" under the photographs of the Polish "Merida" tanks. 8. The T-55 M1958 with "thickened" hatches is identical to the T-55A so this entry should be deleted. Some other small changes I will make myself. dendirrek (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

About that D-30 howitzer on the T-54/55 chassis. I got this same still from a friend who said that it was from a footage about the war in Ethiopia/Eritrea. So I'm not so sure this is a Sudanese-made vehicle. I'm also trying to find a reliable source that says that the MT-55 bridge-layer was made in the Soviet Union but so far nothing. It is almost certain that this is a Czechoslovak design. Regards. dendirrek 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the MT-55 the same vehicle as the BLG 60 M 2? In that case I could have a source for you: Suomalaiset panssarivaunut 1918-1997/The Finnish Armoured Vehicles 1918-1997 by Esa Muikku and Jukka Purhonen (in Finnish and English) [2]. I have the book myself, but it is in Finland, and I am currently in Norway. It gives quite detailed information on the vehicles used in the Finnish Army, and their origins. :( --MoRsE 10:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


As you probably noticed, I removed some of the info you found on JED but added several "real" references. And as I wrote on the discussion page, I agree that the T-54/55 page should be split in two separate articles. Regards. dendirrek 15:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MT-55A and BLG-60

Good morning. Indeed there are many differences between the MT-55A and the BLG-60, I didn't say otherwise, but the design of the BLG-60 was inspired by the Slovak model (according to some sources). However when I check the production dates that I found today then it seems as if the BLG-60 is a little older so I'll edit the text. The East-Germans by the way had started with a version based on the T-34 (BLG-34) but when the T-54/55 entered service the project was cancelled in 1964. [1] Regards dendirrek 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have that Finish book too: it's excellent! About the BLG-60M2 it says only that a lot of former East-German army vehicles were delivered between January 1992 and September 1994 (pages 15 and 25). dendirrek 11:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] BTS-4V

Hello.

In T-62 article witch you recently edited you write that BTS-4V was a medium armoured tractor. However the JED The Military Equipment Directory says that BTS-4V was an ARV just like BTS series ARVs based on T-54/T-55.

Regards. - SuperTank17 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the West the term ARV is used for all kinds of recovery vehicles. I translated the Russian term BTS (I'm Russian speaker by the way) since the Russians make a difference between BTS (armoured tractor, medium), MTP (technical support vehicle) and BREM (armoured repair and recovery vehicle). dendirrek 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTS-2T

Hi again. I noticed that you copied the text from JED about the "Finish" BTS-2T. I have had discussions with Mr Webster about the BTS-2 and -4 for quite some time now. To him, the ARV's with snorkel are BTS-2 and so the Finnish vehicle without a snorkel is a "modification". Fact is that the BTS-2 never had a snorkel; that's the BTS-4. And the square hatch is a standard feature. The Finish army simply got standard Soviet vehicles. The BTS-2 is a rare type but I have some images (of Soviet and East-German vehicles) - and also a drawing of the top view - and they all show the same configuration. Therefore I removed the "BTS-2T" entry. dendirrek 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-62

You copied some things from JED that I (again) do not agree with. There is no proof of the existence of the IT-130 (also sometimes called SU-130). It was rumoured to exist in the West but there's no trace of it in Russian sources. Hence there is also no mine-clearing version SMR-122 of the IT-130; as the name already indicates, that's in fact a variant of the SU-122-54 or rather the MTP-3. Also that T-67 doesn't exist, unless you prove me otherwise. I think he meant the Ob.167 prototype. And finally there's the T-62E. That's a good example how one and the same vehicle is mentioned several times with different designators. T-62E is the old Western name for tanks that were upgraded with BDD armour, KDT-2 range finder etc. and were observed in Afghanistan for the first time. As we know since 1990 (!), this tank is called T-62M. Good night. dendirrek 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem: T-55AGM

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as T-55AGM, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t55agm.php?menu=def2.php, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:T-55AGM and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:T-55AGM with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:T-55AGM.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:T-55AGM/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:T-55AGM saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Dear SuperTank17, sorry I did not follow the full process last night, which would have resulted in this insert showing up on your talk page earlier. You asked why I nominated it for a copyright violation. While you moved some of the text around from the original site - I saw you put the engine's description further up, for example - all the text is exactly the same. I believe this is a copyvio, and thus, having re-read the instructions today, have blanked the page fully and inserted the above template message in your talk. The WP:rules say the page should specifically not be edited again until an administrator has resolved the issue, and if you like, I'll speed the process up by asking WP:MILHIST members who are admins to take a look quickly.

Having looked at your talk, it's obvious you're working hard to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sov main battle tanks (and tanks in general) so please don't be put off by this. The reason I initially looked at it was that it was a single varient page for a T-55 varient, while I would have thought that usual practice would have been to add information to the T-55 page itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ST for your rewrite. It's much better, but right now it isn't very well written: it's just a long parade of vehicle statistics. Would you, with your deeper knowledge of the Soviet/post-Soviet tank development situation, be able to write a descriptive paragraph on why this varient was offered?

This would also remove any lingering copyright concerns, because you would have added specific new material.

The paragraph could run something like 'Morozov decide to develop the T-55AGM in 200X because of (buyers looking for specific features? a perceived need for a rifle-bore tank gun? the Chinese being interested? whatever). 'The T-55AGM package is an improvement on previous modification packages because of (whatever - sight, FLIR, missile launched through the main gun) etc. Export sales possibilities are (high because X, Y, and Z are interested, or low because there are many modification packages for the T-55 available etc, whatever)

If you wish to sandbox such a possible rewrite, you can add it to the text at Talk:T-55AGM/Temp, where I've copied your first rewrite. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] T-72 a further development of T-62 or derived from T-64A?

I have a bit of problem here. One source tells me that T-72 was a further development of T-62 but the other one says that T-72 was derived from T-64A.

Can anyone clear this up? —SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In a sense they're both correct. The T-72 (Ob.172M) was developed by the same factory (Uralvagonzavod) that made the T-62 (Ob.166). One of the first prototypes, the Ob.167, still had the T-62 turret but already the new hull and suspension. On the other hand, the T-72 was an improved yet simplified and cheaper version of the T-64 so some of the parts can be found on both tanks. Another T-72 prototype, the Ob.172, was in fact a T-64A with the new V-46 diesel engine (initially V-45). dendirrek (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Good Evening.
So we can say that T-72 is a further development of T-62 with some features of the T-64A?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes you could, but mind you that the T-72 is a completely new "next-generation" tank when compared to the T-62: new hull, new suspension, new engine, new turret, new gun, new optics, new armour... You risk that some readers will misunderstand the meaning of "furter development" in this case. dendirrek (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East-German T-72's

Good morning! I noticed that there are a lot of changes in the T-72 article, some of the info coming from JED. The part about East-German T-72's contains a LOT of mistakes, especially the designators. There never was a T-72GM or GM1. And why is a T-72 that can be fitted with mine-clearing systems a new variant?? They all can! I'll do some further research and then I'll edit this part myself, I guess that's easier. dendirrek (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that "G" stands for "German" here. If it turns out to be that way, then a "domestically produced T-72M1" would be better, so not to confuse the reader. --MoRsE (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Initially in the West the designator "T-72G" was used for the version that we now know is the T-72M. Other sources say that it might be an export version for non-WarPac states. Anyway it has nothing to do with (East) Germany who, I might add, didn't produce the T-72. All 552 tanks were made by the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Check the "Former operator's" section for more details. In the meanwhile I'll try to find out if those 75 modified T-72M's had a different designator but I'm afraid they don't. dendirrek (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear, since you put the terms T-72M and T-72GM back in the chapter. T-72G was the old (incorrect) Western name for the T-72M. This version is in service in many countries so T-72G has nothing to do with East Germany. You might as well put the name T-72G in the chapters about Polish, Czechoslovak, Yugoslavian etc. version (please don't). The term T-72GM is wrong altogether, the only one who uses it is JED (and now everyone who copies the content from Wiki). For years a try to terminate all those old, obsolete and plain wrong Western names but it's like fighting agains windmills... dendirrek (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
All I did was mention the T-72G and T-72GM were western designations for T-72M/M1 in service with East Germany.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know but it's not correct so please remove it again. Thanks. dendirrek (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I made seperate entries for the T-72M and M1 under Poland and former Czechoslovakia and added the T-72M/T-72G comment there. dendirrek (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No images were removed T-55

Some were put in a gallery as was suggested in the discussion and you concurred.Awotter (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is best discussed on the article talk page at the gallery section. It maybe that others have some good suggestions. What I did is not set in stone obviously, it was a good faith effort to improve the article, there are some guidelines about how best to present information in articles and it is a collaboration, so please be patient. Thanks. Awotter (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello Supertank, I will post a notice to MoRsE also but I wanted to let you know I have been looking at some of the image formatting options and have been playing around on this page User:Awotter/IMAM Ro. 57 and there are several different options to pick and choose from. Multiple images can be wrapped in a frame with an explanatory caption (like for comparing versions of tans etc). An image gallery can go into a section and be in a box the user can hide and show (including a box caption). If you guys want to suggest what images might go where you can use "Media:test_pic.jpg with "Media:" in place of "Image:" and it will act as a placeholder and put it on a list on that page and we can set up the article that way. Any of the images you want to move back feel free. Any of the older page versions will include any caption that was shortened. Thanks, hope that makes sense.Awotter (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life character template

In response to your question, although I've nothing to do with the templates or the Half-Life articles, it would appear that the "Protagonists" section is exclusive to playable characters. You'll notice that all characters featured within are directly controlled by the player, whereas "Others" appears to refer to support characters. It is therefore logical that Alyx remain in the latter section. I won't reverse your change, although I feel you should know that somebody else almost certainly will. Gamer Junkie 22:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I assumed that this was what you were implying with the change. Possibly more distinctive categories such as "Major supporting characters" and "Minor supporting characters" are in order? In any case, the Half-Life articles are not my area of contribution. You'll need to take this up with somebody else. Gamer Junkie 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The template box fix is good, but might I suggest removing the separators behind both the "Dr. Colette Green" and "Dog" links? They are no longer necessary and they would be uniform with the "Uriah" link, which has no separator after it. Gamer Junkie T / C 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Have a good one. Gamer Junkie T / C 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Bosnian Serb ZSU-57-2

Good evening.

I was wondering what is that thing on the roof of that ZSU-57-2 the picture of which is to the right? Is some kind of add-on armour to give it protection from attacks from above? And what is that thing in the front of the hull? Some kind of crate?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
Yes I would say that this ZSU-57-2 is fitted with improvised overhead protection from attacks (and rain). The thing on the hull front looks like an ammo crate to me and very probably serves as "additional passive armour". Other vehicles (T-55, M18 Hellcat, M-60P etc) were also fitted with this kind of improvised armour. Best regards and Merry Christmass. dendirrek (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-55AM2H and BMP-1F

Hello.

Are those vehicles completely bogus or are just the designations bogus?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "T-55AM2H" is an example of the JED-system where types in service with other countries get a new designator with the country code as suffix. So a Czechoslovak T-55AM2 in Hungarian service is a "T-55AM2H", a Romanian tank is called "T-55AM2R" etc. This is an invention of JED's webmaster and it's NOT official. Same goes for the "Greek "BMP-1A1GR" which is complete nonsense!
The BMP-1F was reported by Hungary (under the terms of the CFE Treaty) by mistake; they meant the BRM-1K. Regards - 80.201.44.30 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTR-60

Hello,

When I updated the BTR-60 page, I grouped the variants per basic chassis (BTR-60P, PA and PB). I noticed that everything has been changed again. I wonder why I still bother. But I'll try to explain anyway. Many believe apparently that when you remove the turret from a BTR-60PB, then you have a BTR-60PA, so therefore all the variants without a turret are based on the BTR-60PA. This is not true. One of the external differences is the shape of the periscopes. So when you look at the variants you will notice that most of them are based on the PB and only a small number on the PA. Then there are the typical cases where Russian letters have been tranlated in the wrong way (P and R). So there is no technical support vehicle MTR-2, only the MTP-2 that I had listed from the beginning. And of course the part about the TAB-77 that is the Chinese copy of the BTR-60 is complete rubish, even though there is a TAB-77 displayed in a Chinese museum. Regards. dendirrek (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:T-55AGM 6.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:T-55AGM 6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Same problem with some other images, too. Lupo 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:BRDM-2 Iraq.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BRDM-2 Iraq.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo independence

Thanks SuperTank17, that's real nice from you my friend. Now at least I know what to think about you. Thanks real, real much. Friendship is over.

Aleksej fon Grozni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.60.116 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A circular bulge of an air intake on the rear of PT-76 turret.

Hello.

What is that thing in the rear of PT-76 turret? Some sources say that it's a fume extractor while some describe it as a "circular bulge of an air intake". Now the first version is very probable but here's the problem: I found the same thing while looking at pictures of PT-76 Model 3 which didn't have the fume extractor. Do you have any kind of information that might help me with this problem?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was away for a couple of weeks. I'll try to answer your questions as soon as possible. Regards - dendirrek (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T-44 edits

Do you think you cpould be a bit more careful of your grammar? Almost every one of your edits needs copyediting. I don't disagree with most of your valuable content but it would be a lot more productive if it was written correctly. Thanks very much. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still cleaning up after you; please don't revert to older, incorrect grammar. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Freerepublic is not a reliable source. If you can't back up the information from a reliable source, then it is not verifiable and must go. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--~SRS~ 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation SU-85 page

The page you cut and paste from is copyrighted and clearly states the circumstances under which their material may be used. Have you gotten their permission in writing? The source is not attributed as the site requests. Even if you got permission, honestly I question whether a simple cut and paste from another site is fair use.

Per wikipedia policy, anyone can legitimately blank the page, replacing it with a copyright violation tag, and thus make the whole page useless, if you don't act to correct this problem.

...and I see this is not your first encounter with this policy. DMorpheus (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZSU-57-2 in China

According to my sources Chinese developed and produced their own SPAAG - artillery part from Soviet ZSU-57-2 mounted on chassis of Chinese tank "59". Am I understand you correct that Chinese Army didn't use that SPAAG but only exported it to North Korea?

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMP-1 in Estonian Army

Hello, SuperTank 17!

Just for your possible discussions with 80.235.48.211 about Estonian BMP. I guess that Estonia could get some BMP-1 after the breakup of USSR. Also quite many sources (Russian as well as foreign) mention the presence of BMP-1 in the inventory of Estonian Army. http://www.glosk.com/EN/Estonia/-4966345/pages/Military_of_Estonia/3582_en.htm (data for 2004)

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet UTD-20 diesel

Hello!

What is your source that UTD-20 based on French design? Could you, please, provided us with the exact name of that French engine for comparison of constructions? As far as I know UTD-20 was original Soviet design of new light effective multifuel diesel differ from old models of tank heavy diesels of WWII era. UTD-20 was developed by B. G. Egorov (chief of diesel design bureau of Barnaul Works "Transmash") according to the requirements for new type of vehicle - BMP. I saw recently two factory documents dated December 1959 which describes several original differ ways of construction of some details of UTD-20 until the best design was found.

As for French engines and BMP-1 - I know that Egypt bought such modifications, but this is a much more modern and a very differ story, of course.

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan BMP-1

Hello! The inscription of the photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BMP-1.jpg mentions this as BRM-1K not BMP-1 IFV. It is not very easy to understand exactly but I am not sure that the turret corresponds with BRM-1K turret location very well. Also I see the ATGM launcher which BRM-1K doesn't have. What is your opinion?

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you understand everything with PKB and KPVT? There was no thanks reply from you :) As for the Polish BWP-1 - it was a licensed COPY of Soviet BMP-1. According to you - that was BMP-1 (ob'yect 765Sp2), am I right? By the way, USSR delivered quite many Soviet-manufactured BMP-1 to Poland, do you know the exact amount?

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BPzV turret

Hello! Here is the foto from our article about BMP-1 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/BMP-1_AP_2.jpg

I doubt that this is turret of BPzV because I don't see 902S mortars for smoking grenades and PSNR-5 radar. Looks like turret of usual BMP-1. What is your opinion?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amphibious ability BMP-1

Hello! The article mentions "Peacetime regulations require that any BMP-1 entering water must have a working radio set, since its bearings are not airtight and it can be carried away by currents in case of loss of engine power since the vehicle lacks an anchor." I don't understand what does bearing mean here? Could you clarify this?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Photo - "Two US marines lower the trim vane on the front of an Iraqi BMP-1 IFV captured during Operation Desert Storm, 17 March 1991" I am thinking, is it easy to lower the trim vane (BTW, floatation screen seems to be more understandable term for this) manually if it should be lowered/erected by hydraulic drive? Try to open/close manually the city bus doors, for example, which are driven by less powerful system :)

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small present for the great help with BMP-1 article :)

http://www.fotosik.pl/pokaz_obrazek/pelny/ad8c4b5d01a0fd77.html Beautiful Polish BWP-1 in excellent condition! Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service history of BMP-1

Hello!

I suggest to strongly reduce the information about Russian army units which use BMP-1 at the moment. It is almost impossible to read such long list with the additional information about the amount of personnel, tanks, SPGs of these units - it will be better just to mention units and to give the corresponding amount of BMP-1 IFVs only, without huge amount of extra needless information. The people who are interested in equipment of these units in details can see the corresponding online link. It will be much more useful to pay attention to the analysis of combat use of BMP-1 IFVs during many wars and conflicts, the amount of BMP-1 IFVs used in each conflict, the amount of lost IFVs if the reliable info exists, advantages and disadvantages of BMP-1 (and the tactics of corresponding national units) used during each conflict.

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic signalization system of BMP-1

Hello! I remember your question about BMP's traffic signalization system - according to the crew manual dated 1979 BMP-1 ob'yekt 765Sp3 has six marker lights and one stop light.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian MLI-84

Hello! There is one question interested me a lot. According to ALL sources I could find Romania produced 177 MLI-84 (native modification of BMP-1) but the corresponding Wiki article mentions 400. Why?

As example - a very good source on English which mentions 177 MLI-84 also: http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=6&sec=8

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I consider addition of DShK and other Romanian improvements as modification of BMP-1 (actually all BMP-1 were modifications, aka additions of something to original vehicle). As for 177 MLI-84 - at least all sources (not many, around 7-8) I could find mention the amount of produced or in service as 177 always, but none mentions 400 MLI-84. That is why I asked you to help to solve this problem as I am not a big specialist in Romanian vehicles. At the moment I believe (from what I read) to the amount of built MLI-84 as 177.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just open World Defence Almanac (computer version) from 2003 - it states that Romanian Army had 177 MLI-84 [Masina de Lupta a Infanteriei Model 1984] on 01 January, 2002.

[edit] BMP-1 and tilt-rod mine

Hello! You wrote: "Also when a BMP-1 hit a "tilt-rod" antitank landmine, its steeply-sloped lower front glacis armour plate allowed the mine's arming rod to tilt with little resistance until the maximum deflection was reached with the mine already well under the chassis. When it eventually detonated, the blast usually heavily wounded or killed both the driver and the commander"

This is seems to be possible but I never read about the exact case with the description of BMP damages. Can you provide me with the source(s) to improve my knowledge? By the way, tilt-rod is written without quotes in this case - mine with a tilt-rod is a very common phrase in military literature in English. Also here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-rod_fuze Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The effect of anti-tank mine explosion on BMP-1 (Soviet War in Afghanistan): 1. http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/war_afghan/119_.jpg (right track destroyed as well as several road wheels, all crewmembers were safe) 2. http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/war_afghan/130_.jpg (explosion broke buttom under driver's seat, the fate of the driver is very sad, obviously)

Hello! I completelly agree with the new design of BMP-1 article (to say more I am going to split the description section into chapters tonight but you've done this already). The only thing that seems a little bit surplus for me is the huge amount of photos of captured/destroyed Iraqi BMP-1. This is understandable as it is quite hard for authors writing on English to find good colour photos of Soviet BMP-1 IFVs in action. But I think that it will be better and more perceptive to reduce the amount of photos of Iraqi BMP (2-3 photos will be absolutely enough to illustrate its combat use in Iraq) and to try to find good photos (also 2-3) of BMP-1 in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! You changed the meaning of my sentence about penetration of BMP-1 armour by anti-tank rocket grenades in Afghanistan and Chechnya (Protection issues section)! "During the intense fighting in Afghanistan and Chechnya, 95% cases of penetration of BMP-1's armour was due to a hit done by anti-tank rocket propelled grenade which often results vehicle burning before the flames cause the ammo to explode"

I meant that if anti-tank rocket propelled grenade hits BMP-1 it penetrates its armour in 95% cases (according to statistical analysis of the use of BMP-1 in Afghanistan and Chechnya), but not 95% cases of all armour penetration cases were due to hits of anti-tank rocket grenades (I guess that the majority of cases was due to armor-piercing bullets and land mines). Please, change the meaning of the sentence back.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I hope you are not planning to attach all known photos of destroyed and damaged Iraqi BMP-1 :)? American soldiers made a lot of such photos to illustrate the success of their operations (but quite many Iraqi BMP-1 IFVs were also damaged and abandoned by their crews in reality). For the purpose not to forget the Soviet/Russian origin of BMP-1 and many other places where this IFV used :)

I.

There is no e-mail address, but the nickname of the site owner is Maxpain and I found his ICQ from the site - 215875915 Is it helpful for you? Please, let me know about your progress and if you have some problems - I will try to help you as much as I can.

II. http://armoured.vif2.ru/bmp-1.htm I suggest, for example, these:

I am searching the e-mail through the site....

III. http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BMP1/

Guest book - http://www.guestbook.ru/?action=show&user=vchobitok where you can ask the author of the site Vassily Chobitok

IV. Your request about UTD-20 diesel. I have the good illustrations in my books, but as for online sources - only from here: http://www.prom1.ru/diesel_gen/transport/utd20rus.htm (distributor's site), e-mail - e-mail: enerq@yandex.ru

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)