Talk:9K22 Tunguska

WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Perú

I feel the need of erasing Perú, from the operator's list, since there is no reference about it, and they are just speculations. The citation redirects to the main page of an unofficial and polemical military forum (defensa.pe). If I'm wrong, correct me. Since I'm going to remove it from the list, I will add Perú once again to the operator's list myself if someone can prove with a good source about the existences of Tunguskas on the Peruvian inventory.--Nelson Burgos (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Update:

I've edited the Operators List once again... Another user stated that Perú has 36 units of the 2K22M/M1 model, but in the refered site (http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=264&linkid=1693) there is no such information. Please, send a proper reference page and the country will be included on the Operators list once again. Nelson Burgos (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

PRICE

25MILLION USD???? REALLY??????? no way! citation needed? ofc very needed. SA-22 Greyhound which is a new and MORE capable and MORE advanced system costs about 13-15MILLION! NO WAY THIS COST 25MILLION! it's absurd! I'm going to remove it since there's no source that supports this stupid idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.3.203 (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pantsir

--.:Ajvol:. 00:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does Pantsyr use the same missile system as Tunguska or is it different? Is there a name for the Tunguska missile system, or is there only a name for the whole vehicle? (including cannons, etc.) I'm curious if Pantsyr has an NATO designation. Thanks, Nvinen 05:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, they're both gun/missile systems with radars, with similar roles, but they appear to be different. Perhaps I need to write an article on the Pantsyr. I wonder why it has no SA- name, maybe because it's too new (post cold-war)? I guess I should do more research. Nvinen 05:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See developer's site:

--.:Ajvol:. 08:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SA-19 designation for the Tunguska incorrect?

SA-19 is actually the name of the missile, not the Tunguska gun-missile system.

Merge

I dont think it should be merged the tunguska-m1 is a vehicle in its own right a deserves its own article.

Deng 07-02-06 07.40 CET

I have migrated most of the content related to the vehicle, to the now expanded Tunguska-M1 article. I would now like to change this article to be purely about the missile. Note that I have not moved the images two Gulf Link images - because I think they are of low quality, and show nothing that the Army magazine image doesn't already show. Does anyone have any comments before I do? Megapixie 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, while being "another" weapon system, the split information does not serve any good purpose. The informations should be included in the same article. Now it is just confusing. --MoRsE 04:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be merged with the Tunguska-M1 article. This article concerns the 9M311 missile (NATO designatios SA-19 "Grisom"), while the Tunguska-M1 article covers the SP-AAA platform that also mounts automatic anti-aircraft cannon. They are different items all together. The SA-19 is used on other platforms besides the Tunguska-M1, and the Tunguska-M1 can function without the SA-19s. This would make about as much sense as merging the Avenger, M6 Linebacker, and LAV-AD vehicles into the FIM-92 Stinger article, or merging the M113 article with the MIM-72 Chaparral article (as it was transported on the M730, an M113 based prime mover). Merging the two would make no sense. I suggest changing the picture, as that does add confusion (it is identical with the picture in the Tunguska-M1 article and does not even show an actual 9M311 missile). There are plenty of pictures avialable now of the SA-19 missile itself, it should head the article. Other than that, seprate articles are fine.SAWGunner89 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SAWGunner89. The merge banner should be removed Raoulduke47 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the banner, and pictures of two 2s6. I suspect whoever nominated it for the merger saw the duplicate pictures and name from the 2s6 article and assumed they were the same. I've replaced them with a self drawn image of a SA-19 which I plan to improve (however I really didn't want to leave the article without any pictures). Anynobody 06:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There are pictures availible online, the problem is they are often too small to be of any good here, and low quality too. Everyone be on the lookout please.SAWGunner89 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

English wiki/NATO designation

Given that this is the English Wikipedia and NATO included many English speaking countries I've been bold and renamed this article. Anynobody 07:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't the English names for the missile/system they are the NATO designation. Virtually all the other Soviet weapon systems have been moved to their official Soviet/Russian designations (with Romanization of the system names). See for example Category:Cold War missiles of the Soviet Union. We have redirects and links from lists to help people navigate to the correct articles. I would support moving it back to the official designation. Megapixie 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they are NATO designations, the languages of NATO are English and French. I've noticed that most Russian/Soviet weapons have their native designations as the article titles. Please bear in mind I'm not saying their official designations should be excluded, they definitely should be mentioned too just not as the title.

The NATO designations also help explain the system they are describing, which is convenient. (SA-2 Surface to Air, AA-10 Air to Air, Fulcrum = Fighter, Badger = Bomber, etc.) Anynobody 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing their simplicity - but they project a unnecessary cold war cloud over the whole thing. We don't use American designations for Japanese world war II aircraft (i.e. Zero over Zeke) for the same reasons. Take the clumsy name of this article the reason the missile is designated as both SA-19 and SA-N-11 is that NATO simply didn't realise they were the same missile. Equally SA-7/SA-N-5 same missile. SA-10 is also not a helpful designation as it covers several missiles. I'm going to point to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, and say that the Russian designation fits as:
• Current undisputed official name of entity
• Current self-identifying name of entity
And thus holds as the official name.
Megapixie 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Megapixie. Consensus among the military-related wikiprojects has evolved to using the producer's official name, not other nicknames or codenames. The NATO reporting names are to be identified at the first reference to the system (typically in the lead paragraph), and otherwise sparingly used (outside of lists of variants and such). Moreover, the NATO code name for the SA-19 is "Grison"; "Grisom" is an erroneous spelling that seems to be propagating from its unfortunate use by Global Security. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion thread is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. The box is simply for organization.

I should point out that if "Grisom" is incorrect then the US Navy is also propagating the error: SA-19 Grisom from http://web.nps.navy.mil. I've seen it spelled both ways, which is why I didn't reinstate the original name which was SA-19 Grisom. Anynobody 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The US Navy isn’t propagating this error; a journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School is (and they probably got it from Global Security/FAS or possibly Wikipedia). A better source would have been Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence. Other good sources Andreas Parsch’s listing, Forecast International, SIPRI, Defense Industry Daily, Defence Journal [1] & [2], Warfare.ru, and Google will turn up many more. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Google is useful for finding information about this topic, I actually found the site I linked by using this search: SA-19 site:.mil. The information is on a Navy server which shows up on a Google search, they may not know it but they are possibly propagating an error (again because I don't know which one is actually correct, all due respect to Andreas Parsch and Aleksey V. Martynov). The only non-military sites I would consider reliable all want money, like Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence which is why I'm guessing you didn't link to it. (I agree they are quite reliable, just not accessible to all). Anynobody 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I concur with Megapixie as well; if we start rearranging the Russian names for NATO designations I ffel that we may start a chain reaction that reaches not only to other russian equipment pages with X-designated names. From where I sit it would be better just to leave it as it was. On an unrelated note: Why don't I see a move request for a change this big? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced the Russian names we're using are accurate, since there are usually a couple of different designations for their equipment. We would actually also be creating order by picking one or the other, there are currently several articles based on NATO/Western terminology:

1. The Typhoon class submarine is actually called the Type 941 ''Akula'' and the Akula class submarine is actually called Type 971 ''Shuka-B ''
2. The Soviet cruiser Kirov instead of it's type designation Type 1144 ''Orlan''
3. (For the most part the whole Russian/Soviet Navy on wikipedia)

Also, many times the articles using Russian designations are unclear about what some names/designations are:

1. Vympel K-13 lists specifications for (R-13M / R-3R) and talks about R-3S as being older than the R-3R which may be accurate in Russian but is counterintuitive for English speakers. (Besides I thought it was called the K-13 based on the title.)
compare to: AA-2 or AA-2 Atoll.
2. When this article was called 9M311 people couldn't tell if it was talking about the launcher, the missile, both or something else. (FAS designates it as 9M111 Pantsyr S1)
compare to SA-19/SA-N-11.

We have the same basic problem as NATO did when they came up with the designations, Russian and English are not very compatible and this leads to counterintuitive issues such as the R-13S predating the R-13R. Anynobody 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you like numbered points:
1. This article falls under MILHIST, which already has guidelines regarding the names of missiles, as listed above. THe usual practice is to get a consensus on the article talk page BEFORE renaming against the guidelines.
2. Ships are under a different project, which may well have differing guidelines than MILHIST.
3. If you disagree with the guidelines in MILHIST (or any other project), you are free to try to change the guidelines, but doing so article-by-article is counter-productive. - BillCJ 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this article falls under the care of the Military history WikiProject, and if I had an organized plan to change all the articles I would have started there. I actually made my decision based on a guideline for just this sort of debate. In this case the article was really confusing to someone with little or no knowledge of the subject AND wasn't using the most readily identifiable English name as the naming conventions policy prescribes.

I do like numbered points, and tables too (this one from WP:NCON):

 Criterion 9M311 SA-19/SA-N-11 1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1 2. Current undisputed official name of entity* 0 0 3. Current self-identifying name of entity* 0 0 1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. *As noted, a reference calls the missile 9M111 Pantsyr S1, so I'm not sure the 9M311 name satisfies numbers 2 and 3.

(PS the article actually used to be called SA-19 Grisom before it was changed in March: diff citing a now defunct guideline.)

Anynobody 06:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how this could effect a wide variety of articles here, may I suggest that we move this over to the primary MILHIST talk page and discuss it further there? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned by Anynobody, this is the Wikipedia, but I say it is NOT the NATOpedia. NATO codenames might have been useful in the days of the Cold War, when information was scarce out of the USSR, and also before the days of the internet. But this is now 2007, and information runs freely. The Antonov An-124 is well known by its official name Ruslan (not Condor). The Antonov An-225 is well known as Mriya (not Cossack). I would also like to ask Anynobody if English speakers include the billion plus people in India? What about Nigeria? Pakistan? South Africa? the Middle East? etc, etc, all non-NATO countries/regions, who, especially in the case of India, would likely use official designations over NATO codes. Or does it only include Americans and Brits? Also, an example, the MiG-29K and the MiG-29KUB are two different variants yet both have Fulcrum-C reporting codes. If these two variants warranted their own article, you can't have both at Fulcrum-C can you? As to the argument of most articles on wikipedia using NATO codenames, this is likely an after effect of people throwing together articles purely from American sources (FAS, GlobalSecurity, etc) where these codenames are given prevalence over the official and real names of aircraft, ships, missiles, equipment, etc, and any instances should be changed. If you don't feel that the Russian designations are correct, then why isn't a call put out to editors who understand Russian and have access to much more detailed sources in Russian language to assist in such articles, rather than taking the sloppy, yes it is sloppy, route of using unofficial, egregious NATO codenames. --Russavia 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Should retain Russian names- they are Russian pieces of equipment. DOD (for SA-series missiles) and NATO codenames were only needed when the real name isn't known. Strongly support moving back to Russian name, and as for the good point on Russian naval vessels as above? I suggest we rename them, following this discussion, to their Russian 'Project X' designators. For now, no more articles should have their names changed before this discussion has gone its course. Buckshot06 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer responding to points/questions in chronological order. TomStar81 I think a discussion of an overall change definitely should be held somewhere else, otherwise anyone who doesn't edit this article would be unfairly left out. Here I think the article should use designations which can be easily verified in Western English language sources. Which actually is the US designation in this case for those who want to be specific, when I say NATO or English I mean the "West" as opposed to Eastern bloc. I used those designations here because there seems to be some clarity issues with what the word is for this particular SAM (Grison or Grisom?)

Russavia correct me if I'm wrong, but the billion plus people in India are not all English speakers, I actually have friends from India whose relatives can't speak English yet still answer the phone when they visit. This is similar to some places in Canada where many people speak French. (The point is just because a language is "official" doesn't mean it's a majority.)

Secondly, I am actually referring to anyone whose primary (and in quite a few cases only) language is English AND who can't read Russian Cyrillic. I'm not saying it's a perfectly "clean" solution, but it's less "sloppy" than using contradictory sources or another languages for a page written in English.

To all, the bottom line is that for this article the most verifiable and English accessible designation is SA-19/SA-N-11, SA-19, or SA-N-11 pending a definitive verification of it's NATO codename, which I prefer since it's a multinational standard.

Of course if the Russian military is ever helpful enough to publish information about their weapons systems in English, I'd say go with them. Anynobody 06:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some problems as I see it.
• As you mention, SA-19 is a designation is it NOT what it is called.
• Verifiability in English is NOT a requirement on this English (or any other) wikipedia. So long as it is able to be verified.

But the BIGGEST problem. It can't be verified whether it is given the unofficial designation Grisom or Grison - this calls into questions the veracity of the sources used to ascertain it is designated the SA-19/SA-N-11 - the sources can't verify without a shadow of a doubt it is unofficially designated the SA-19 or SA-N-11?

As I can verify, without a shadow of a doubt that it is called the 9M311, this article should immediately be moved back to its original placeholder. My sources

Tunguska-M1

Ok i made this page it aint all that good so i am hopeing someone will improve it ;) I will try to improve it over time but the more people that help the better

And watch the video with the cheesy mission imposible music :D

Also there are many more items to be found here which could be added to Wiki

http://www.roe.ru/p_prod/airdef.htm

Deng 2005-12-20 15.30 CET

Was also going to move it to tunguska-m1 but am to lazy, so nice of you to move it ;)

Deng 2005-12-22 04.30 CET

I dont think it should be merged the tunguska-m1 is a vehicle in its own right a deserves its own article.

Deng 07-02-06 07.40 CET

i am not a registered user. dont remember my number, my name is John ,from Greece

PANTSIR and TUNGUSKA are two different systems for Russia. for the NATO is one system. the correct is the first. Russian army adopt the TUNGUSKA . the PANTSIR made most for export sales. but recently Russian army decide to adopt it, to help the export sales that were with no succecs. only U.A.E get 50 PANTSIR . a deal for a Russian debt to that country. recently Jordan and Syria express interest to buy the system . Jordan is now evaluating the system. also interest expressed from a South american country. for WIKIPEDIA readers the right is that two different articles must be create. the systems are different

Myanmar

this diff has removed Myanmar from this list of users. As there is no sources it is hard to know whether it was correct to remove them or not, and asking the anon contributor for sources is asking them to disprove something (i.e. much harder than merely requiring attribution). I think it reasonable to keep any historical users and note when they stop being users. John Vandenberg 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the same user coming with different ip and refused to use talk pages to discuss, instead he kept removing Myanmar from operator. He claimed to have confirmation from Russian MOD by speaking to his friend General Ivan and Admirial Yuri (sounds a hoax to me). According to IISS Military Balance 2007, which draws data from United Nation Register for Conventional Arms Transfer and official release from various MODs, Myanmar has acquired 48 units of Tor M-1 SAMs and a number of Tunguska-M1 units from Russia through barter trade deal using natural gas. While there is no official confirmation avialable from both country, the recent gas drilling contract awarded to two Russian state owned oil companies to drill for natural gas in Myanmar's offshore A1 gas block confirms the IISS Military Balance suggestion. It would be good if the person from greece (thats where the ip originate from) can provide any reliable contestation instead of leaving childish remarks and quotation in the article. Judging from his remarks, he sound like a child. Maybe he just doesnt understand how weapon transfer works and probably dont know what IISS is. Okkar 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

answer. their is a possibility . that their is a deal that is still secret. for example .few years ago Cyprus orderd from Russia 12 MI-35P attack helicopters. a Cypriot demand was that the deal should be kept secret for 10 monthns from the day that signatures felt. Cyprus wanted the helicopters to arrive secret to the country without Turkey learn anything for the deal. Russian did it. I accept the same for the case of Myanmar if is a deal like Cyprus. but the numbers of the systems is very high and that three systems different are ordered seems to make the case not really to believe. also nothing at all is known worldwide. any way . i watch every country in the world what systems operate, order ,retire , sell. i am doing this the last 23 years. first time i watch this. the reason i am getting very upset every time is because i saw people write in WIKIPEDIA about systems that dont exist in their armed forces. and because million people read these and getting bad and lie informations i am getting very upset. a guy recently wrote a lie that Serbia will buy 100 T-80 and 15 T-90 MBT. A other wrote that Bulgaria opreate 80 BMP-3. A other make his country 20 MIG-21 to be 200. of course all not true. Serbia is so in trouble that hsa no money to buy fuel for armys tanks and air force planes. how to buy these very moderns tanks ??? i believe you understand. many people write whatever they imagine or wish for their country. also i dont believe that a country can operate still WWII Bren carries and museum Bloodhound sam missiles with new state of the art weapon systems bought in extremely large numbers. is more that a joke. any way . i dont have something against you or your country. i know that Myanmar is a beautiful country. i know how the weapon deals are working in the world. i want to believe that is a direct deal between two coutries not still announsed for specific reasons.

Can anyone please explain why a "referenced/cited" paragraph was recently removed from this article? I don't have access to the source, so I'm unable to assess if the removal was appropriate or not. Thanks & regards,DPdH (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger

This article should not be merged into the 9M311 article. That article talks about the 9M311 missile, given the NATO designation SA-19 "Grisom". This article is concerned with the SP AAA platform, the Tunguska-M1, which is the launch platform for the 9M311 missile. Granted, the picture should be changed at the 9M311 to prevent confusion. There are pictures avialable online of the 9M311 missile by itself. If the person who applied to tag actually took the time to read the articles, he would have seen that. The article should not be merged at all. Should the M6 Linebacker and LAV-AD sections be merged into the FIM-92 Stinger article. Probably not, so then why should this one be merged, because it would be doing basically the same thing.SAWGunner89 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Star Thrust

Added the following reference. Should give a better balance as it was part of the OPFOR material used by the US Army. Note the reference to the SA-N-19 as the GRENDEL. Could this be due to a older designation?

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Red-Star/issues/APR95/APR95.HTML#THREAT

Threat Update: 2S6 Tunguska Self-Propelled Air Defense System, Red Star Thrust April 95 issue, U.S. Forces Command OPFOR Training Program]

Koxinga CDF 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ZSU-30-2

Is this vehicle the same as the ZSU-30-2? 66.208.12.125 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why M1 in the title?

I'd call the page simply 2S6 "Tunguska". The Tunguska-M1, as the article says, is only one of at least 4 different existing models. Unless you want to make a page for every model? ;-) I mean, it's like giving the page that talks about the history and all the models of the M1 Abrams, "M1A2". That doesn't make sense. I also updated the page with some details, for instance the other vehicles of the 2K22 set. dendirrek 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to 9M22 Tunguska since all models are discussed here, decided to use the army missile system GRAU designation but have also included the 2S6 artillery designation in the AFV box as well. Could also have used 2K22 but though 9M22 would fit better.
Personally I think the 9M311 missile article should be merged with this article, since the missile was developed for the 9M22 Tunguska right from the start rather than just being provided as an add-on like Stinger was for LAV or Igla for the ZSU-23-4. We dont seem to have seperate articles for each missile for other systems like Tor or Osa etc and i dont see why we should do so here.

Objections?Typhoon9410 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as part of the Weaponry task force, I will be taking care of the merge and I will (try to) standardize the Air Defence Weapon articles. Please bare with me, it might take a while to merge all the different articles. I will base the page structure on articles like the SA-8 one.
Thanks and hopefully you will help me and be patient! Germ (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Any comment? --Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The best

I would say, that 2S6 is, to my sources, usually called as the most effective and advanced flak SP in the world, atleast at the time of its first service and considering only artillery SP (Gepard, AMX-30VDA ecc.). This should be mentioned, i think.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 9K22 Tunguska

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 9K22 Tunguska'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 "militaryparitet":

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. AnomieBOT 08:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the missile article was merged into the AA system one?

Hi, I've seen in this discussion page that in the past the merge was opposed by several editors and supported by few. Why did the merge proceed? It'd be similar to merging "Chaparral" and "Sidewinder"! It is not the same object a missile and an antiaircraft system (esp. if the missile is used in other AA systems), so separate articles do make sense IMHO.
Unless reasonable, fundamented opposition is expresed, I'll move the missile info to its own article in a few weeks.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist