|WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
The design designation for the Vikhr seems to be wrong in the article, I've found the following designations for it:
- 9K121 in the article
- 9M120 on http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at-16.htm
- 9A4172 (AT-9) in the combat sim Lockon
- In the AT-9 Spiral-2 article the 9A1472 is mentioned as being often confused with, but unrelated to the 9M120
- http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at-9.htm also mentions the other Vikhr
So to me, the AT-9 article should be the 9A1472 and this one the 9M120, but since the sources don't even agree fully I'd rather have some extra input on this.
- I started the original article. I'm no expert - I don't speak Russian. But my understanding is that the 9Kxxx designations refer to the overall weapon system. The 9Mxxx refers to the missile. 9A4172 is a new one on me - but I see it all over the internet when refering to the missile. Please feel free to add it the article. Bear in mind that details of a weapon system this new are always a bit vague - most sources are a bit vague on 30 year old plus weapon systems. Megapixie 12:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to find some more info on what distinguishes the AT-9 and AT-16, but the more sources I look at, the more I think the missiles are actually the same or very much alike (probably the reason of all the confusion in the first place). So until I've found a reliable source which covers both missiles I'll leave the articles as they are. http://www.pmulcahy.com/atgm/russian_atgm.htm explains the difference between the missiles adequately, but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. - Dammit 14:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The confusion is real. 90% of sources in the west confuse the 9A1472 Vikhr with the 9M120 Ataka. I am coming to the rescue in a short while.
--Avimimus 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
While most of this article is NPOV, it seems that the last two paragraphs are partly a slam vs. the West.
"Instead of the NATO's expensive and delicate technology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)