This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tor missile system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
this name (torus) continues the line of "geometry" names of SA systems: Kub (Cube), Kvadrat (Square), Krug (Round). -- jno 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
IISS Military Balance 2007 stated 48 units of Tor Missile System in Myanmar/Burma's order of battle. However, User:85.75.82.99 claim that his "friends" in Russian MOD has confirmed that is not to be true, but he has not provided any verifiable proof that this supposed confirmation from Russian MOD. Please do not make up stories to support your claim. IISS Military Balance is a prominent publication and their information are based upon Weapon transfer registered with United Nations. Okkar 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the deal is not confirmed yet from both Russia and Myanmar the correct is to add near to the numbers the word ,not comfirmed, to Tunguska , Tor M-1 and Buk M-1 SAMs. when then confirmed ,to remove the ,not confirmed, .
"Libya has decided to buy the Tor-M1. 20 Launchers to be ordered soon." Reference please. Bogdan 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.166.14 ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Syria from the list of operators, while referanced all accounts of Syrias use of TOR seem to originate from an Aviation Week article that miss-identified a recent shipment of PANTSIR for TOR.-- Typhoon9410 ( talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was withdrawn. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The article currently does not comply with the developed name convention of Russian SAM systems, should be "9K330 Tor" as opposed to "Tor Missile System" like "9K37 Buk", "9K33 Osa", "9K22 Tunguska" etc. -- Typhoon9410 ( talk)
"Each 9K331 vehicle is a completely autonomous transporter, launcher, and radar unit TLAR (smilar but not a TLAR) as it cannot move the missile) although it can be linked into a wider air defense system." This statement from the "Description" section needs to be clarified by someone who knows what a TLAR is. I don't, but there's obviously something wrong with this statement and the semi-compound parenthetical note. Oneforlogic ( talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Source that shows that georgia has Tor SAM is a YouTube video that contains russian generals speculations that georgia might have Tor systems.
Other sources, including russian ones, indicate that that Georgian used Buk-M1 to shot Ty22M.
Also, fact that Ty-22M was used for reconnaissance is desputed. Somw sources indicate that plain was used to bomb targets in georgia.
War Azerbaijan-Armenia
Footage released by azerbaijani sources on monday, 29th of September 2020 shows an armenian Tor-missile system in a lightly fortified, immobile position with its radar active destroyed head on by an azerbaijani aircraft or (Israeli made) drone, obviously without taking any measure of defence against the incoming havoc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.135.228 ( talk) 14:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I've just completed a major rewrite of the article, fixing up grammar, spelling and sentence structure, to make the article more readable. Kudos to all who have worked on this article, it's a diamond in the rough. Just needs a bit more polishing, but the substance is there. If we can get few more references, I reckon we can get this to B-class.
As always, my edits are open to revision, scrutiny, and criticism. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover ( talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone repeatedly writes "Soviet Union" in the table field for "Place of origin". The SU seized to exist in 1991, and the field is not called "originally developed in" or something like this. Please comment - or stop changing it from "Russia". -- Bernd vdB ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Im just trying to illustrate the meaning of the term "place of origin" for you, it is certainly trivial but im sorry you believe it to be far fetched. As said it is no conincidence that all other pre-1991 articles carry SU as their origin (limitations of the automobile infobox accepted) becuase the SU was the place where Tor came into being, it doesnt matter that the SU no longer exists today. How do you believe that by presenting Tor as originating in the post-1991 Russian Federation is more correct than the 1986 SU when it was actually introduced?
One more attempt at an illustration, the R-36 missile was developed by Yuzhnoye in what is now the Ukraine but the R-36 place of origin was the SU because Ukraine did not exist when the missile was developed. The origin of the R-36 as with any other example does not update itself with the times.
However to just get this tiresome issue resolved I have edited the place of origin to Soviet Union (Russia) which appeases everyone. Typhoon9410 ( talk) 11:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Janes has this range at 15km vice 500km Birdman93 ( talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That section seems to be unbalanced, one should really arrange the sources properly. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't Igor listed as an operator of the TOR missile system? TaffyMike79 ( talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Analogs significantly [1] worse [2] [3] than Tor
References
I can't figure out where the missiles are in the vehicle: do they launch from the slanted panels on the edges, or are they concentrated in the center? The panels look like doors, but it doesn't seem like there's enough space under them to fit a 10ft missile vertically. Are they laid out in a line, with two 4-missile boxes edge-to-edge, or are they clustered side by side in two rows of four? And where do the crew sit? It looks like it must be very cramped. Are they all located in the front of the hull? Also, why does the whole top turn? I thought it was a fixed unit until I saw the photo of the wheeled unit on the bottom. It's a vertical launch system, so why does it need to turn to face the target? I know the radar needs to face the target, but they could just mount the radar on its own pivot and make the missile launcher stationary in the chassis. Seems like it'd be a lot simpler. Are the missiles designed to only turn in one direction when they are fired, to make them simpler, so they have to be properly oriented in the right general direction before they are ejected from the launcher? I know naval missiles can turn in any direction after launch...or I assume they can...but that makes them a little more complex. I guess the question is is it better to make the missile more complex or the launcher more complex? AnnaGoFast ( talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC) (BTW, I'm changing the bit where the person is declaring that the Tor is "obviously superior to analogues, as can be seen by comparing charts" (to paraphrase). The tone is wrong, such things shouldn't be stated as fact, they should be stated as "So-and-so BELIEVES/JUDGES/CONSIDERS the Tor missile system to be superior". It's not Wikipedia's place to state who is the best, or who "wins". You can report that someone ELSE calls them the best, but that's it. You don't say "the Ferrari 468 is the best car in the world", you say "Automobile magazine has judged the Ferrari 458 the 'best car in the world'". Besides, I'll check out the references they gave, but if it's just a couple of charts "proving" his/her point, I'm deleting it as original research. I've found this on a couple other articles, armchair experts evaluating systems and declaring them the best based on the numbers they found. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The image with the description of "SA-N-9 firing from the Kirov class cruiser Frunze." is actually showing the PK-2 decoy launcher launching flares.
http://militaryhistory.x10.mx/shippictures/kirov%20class/kirov%2001.jpg
13 - ПУСКОВЫЕ УСТАНОВКИ ВЫСТРЕЛИВАЕМИХ ПОМЕХ = decoy launcher
You can clearly see the bow of the Frunze here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg
The SA-N-9 was never installed on it (they were only installed on Pyotr Velikiy and only on its stern) - the bow SA-N-9 launchers would go on these two large square panels. You can see from the incorrect photo that the launch is taking place just behind the RBU launcher and this is the structure housing the decoys.
So, the image needs to be removed from the Tor wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijozic ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2e/TOR_M2E_rus_2013.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2266{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2006953.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The following statement "Unlike the Tor system, the HQ-17 incorporates an IFF array on top of an electronically scanned array radar, modernized electronics, a new all-terrain launcher, and the ability to datalink with other china systems" is highly misleading. Chances are the editor that put the information paraphrased it wrongly. Both Russian and Chinese Tor system have the same antenna configuration albeit conforming to different military standards. It reads much better if the "unlike" is changed to "like", to reflect the superficial similarity between the two. Or if we want to reflect the source properly, the statement should be changed into, "In comparison to Tor system, HQ-17 is similar in form and function except that it uses Chinese custom electronics...." or something close to it. We can see HQ-17 isn't that different from the outside compared to Russian Tor, on the same source cited for the misleading statement. The current statement implied the original version do not have an IFF antenna and electronically scanned array radar which is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.189.149 ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Twitter link: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1501938378878558220?s=20&t=Tn9VLl_8--YqXMbhDN0MvA Could we add Igor as a new operator of the TOR missile system? I think we should also add Ukrainian farmers as they have conquered a few. Waerth ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this deserves discussion. If the systems are actually in private possession, surely that should be documented. Thoerner ( talk) 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Let Igor have the property. It is privately owned vehicle. There are many cases of operators of vehicle/aircraft recorded in the hands of civilian. Kadrun ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Totaly agree Igor should be on the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.111.229 ( talk) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
At the very least this needs a much better reference than Twitter. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 10:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't know if it's really working with the picture. Maybe it abandonned because it's broken and so, useless. Even if he clearly has one, we can't know if he already has this one and if it's a real working weapon Elikill58 ( talk) 12:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Support but wait 1. Need a source other than twitter, 2. Not confirmed if it is fully operational or not. Otherwise, I don't see why not, but that may open the floodgates for other similar military equipment to have civilian possessions added as operators, perhaps a general designation of "Ukrainian Citizen" or "Ukrainian Militia" for all captured operational equipment, because more than a few have been captured (like that titktok of group of civs driving a tank). JustAnotherWikiUser0816 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Taking possession or owning a device is not the same as being an operator, I don't think Igor is going to have a ready supply of ammunition, spare parts, maintenance schedules etc to really be considered as an operator. As much fun as it would be to list individual farmers, I think the article would be more useful if it just listed working TOR devices that we can confirm have passed into the hands of the Ukraine military Paraphrased ( talk) 00:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Would it be worth it to try and reach out to the account who originally made the tweet (@oryxspioenkop), and ask if there’s any more information regarding “Igor”? A tweet from an unverified account, despite the ≈200k followers said account has, isn’t exactly a reliable source. At least, as far as I know. Kotobdev 01:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Could we perhaps create a new article for civilian ownership of military vehicles? If one doesn’t already exist that is Halalgladiator69 ( talk) 15:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Sgnpkd and Novem Linguae: [3] seemed like a reasonable approach to this. Sure, it needs better references, but then, we're relying on youtube for other references. I think this is something that could be reinstated and expanded, but needs better references. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we just put "several were allegedly repossessed by civilians" at the buklet point for Ukraine. Just spitballing. AwkwrdPrtMskrt ( talk) 05:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no aviable proof that Igor has lost acces to his TOR missile system so dont act like a nerd. Igor from Ukraine ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment.
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
A few news sites have picked up on the "Igor from Ukraine" story - do these count as good enough sources? At least it's a step up from twitter. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.167.72 ( talk) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment.
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
A few news sites have picked up on the "Igor from Ukraine" story - do these count as good enough sources? At least it's a step up from twitter. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.167.72 ( talk) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "an Ukrainian civilian" to "a Ukrainian civilian" under "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" NoahT07 ( talk) 12:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The performance of the system in the Ukrainian conflict is not accurately portrayed in the combat history section. The information about Russian variants being towed is also incorrect. KingLar2010 ( talk) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Found a guy who put a message on the wrong section of the talk page. I shall reproduce his post here, verbatim.
hello. can i put in igor who found a abandoned one. as i think i found a good source. https://meaww.com/ukrainian-man-on-a-stroll-claims-20-million-15-million-russian-9-k-330-tor-tank-abandoned-in-forest Ninjaxavier ( talk) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Meaww only has Wikipedia and the original Tweet as sources, and is therefore not reliable. In addition, this discussion seems to have appeared before already. I think, if we can find a reliable source, we should add to the Ukraine count the number of civilians in possession of these.
I removed File:Soviet Udaloy class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov (1990).JPEG because I think the image is irrelevant and its caption is wrong. "SA-N-9 launcher on the Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov" - some editor thought Kinzhal missile compartment was the white structure ahead of 100-mm guns. I found a drawing of Udaloy destroyers online (in Russian, 1st part [4] and 2nd part [5]), according to it, that white structure (#2) is "вентиляторные" (ventilyatornyye - 'fan' per Google, likely the fans of some ventilating system). Centaur271188 ( talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
there was and is no evidence that morocco posseses TOR Missile systems. 92.218.146.145 ( talk) 22:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I know for a fact Igor still owns one of these Bxalber ( talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Igor From Ukraine this may sound like a joke, but seriously a guy from Ukraine found a SAM system while walking in the woods and now he owns it Domino317 ( talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tor missile system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
this name (torus) continues the line of "geometry" names of SA systems: Kub (Cube), Kvadrat (Square), Krug (Round). -- jno 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
IISS Military Balance 2007 stated 48 units of Tor Missile System in Myanmar/Burma's order of battle. However, User:85.75.82.99 claim that his "friends" in Russian MOD has confirmed that is not to be true, but he has not provided any verifiable proof that this supposed confirmation from Russian MOD. Please do not make up stories to support your claim. IISS Military Balance is a prominent publication and their information are based upon Weapon transfer registered with United Nations. Okkar 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the deal is not confirmed yet from both Russia and Myanmar the correct is to add near to the numbers the word ,not comfirmed, to Tunguska , Tor M-1 and Buk M-1 SAMs. when then confirmed ,to remove the ,not confirmed, .
"Libya has decided to buy the Tor-M1. 20 Launchers to be ordered soon." Reference please. Bogdan 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.166.14 ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Syria from the list of operators, while referanced all accounts of Syrias use of TOR seem to originate from an Aviation Week article that miss-identified a recent shipment of PANTSIR for TOR.-- Typhoon9410 ( talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was withdrawn. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The article currently does not comply with the developed name convention of Russian SAM systems, should be "9K330 Tor" as opposed to "Tor Missile System" like "9K37 Buk", "9K33 Osa", "9K22 Tunguska" etc. -- Typhoon9410 ( talk)
"Each 9K331 vehicle is a completely autonomous transporter, launcher, and radar unit TLAR (smilar but not a TLAR) as it cannot move the missile) although it can be linked into a wider air defense system." This statement from the "Description" section needs to be clarified by someone who knows what a TLAR is. I don't, but there's obviously something wrong with this statement and the semi-compound parenthetical note. Oneforlogic ( talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Source that shows that georgia has Tor SAM is a YouTube video that contains russian generals speculations that georgia might have Tor systems.
Other sources, including russian ones, indicate that that Georgian used Buk-M1 to shot Ty22M.
Also, fact that Ty-22M was used for reconnaissance is desputed. Somw sources indicate that plain was used to bomb targets in georgia.
War Azerbaijan-Armenia
Footage released by azerbaijani sources on monday, 29th of September 2020 shows an armenian Tor-missile system in a lightly fortified, immobile position with its radar active destroyed head on by an azerbaijani aircraft or (Israeli made) drone, obviously without taking any measure of defence against the incoming havoc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.135.228 ( talk) 14:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I've just completed a major rewrite of the article, fixing up grammar, spelling and sentence structure, to make the article more readable. Kudos to all who have worked on this article, it's a diamond in the rough. Just needs a bit more polishing, but the substance is there. If we can get few more references, I reckon we can get this to B-class.
As always, my edits are open to revision, scrutiny, and criticism. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover ( talk) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone repeatedly writes "Soviet Union" in the table field for "Place of origin". The SU seized to exist in 1991, and the field is not called "originally developed in" or something like this. Please comment - or stop changing it from "Russia". -- Bernd vdB ( talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Im just trying to illustrate the meaning of the term "place of origin" for you, it is certainly trivial but im sorry you believe it to be far fetched. As said it is no conincidence that all other pre-1991 articles carry SU as their origin (limitations of the automobile infobox accepted) becuase the SU was the place where Tor came into being, it doesnt matter that the SU no longer exists today. How do you believe that by presenting Tor as originating in the post-1991 Russian Federation is more correct than the 1986 SU when it was actually introduced?
One more attempt at an illustration, the R-36 missile was developed by Yuzhnoye in what is now the Ukraine but the R-36 place of origin was the SU because Ukraine did not exist when the missile was developed. The origin of the R-36 as with any other example does not update itself with the times.
However to just get this tiresome issue resolved I have edited the place of origin to Soviet Union (Russia) which appeases everyone. Typhoon9410 ( talk) 11:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Janes has this range at 15km vice 500km Birdman93 ( talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That section seems to be unbalanced, one should really arrange the sources properly. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't Igor listed as an operator of the TOR missile system? TaffyMike79 ( talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Analogs significantly [1] worse [2] [3] than Tor
References
I can't figure out where the missiles are in the vehicle: do they launch from the slanted panels on the edges, or are they concentrated in the center? The panels look like doors, but it doesn't seem like there's enough space under them to fit a 10ft missile vertically. Are they laid out in a line, with two 4-missile boxes edge-to-edge, or are they clustered side by side in two rows of four? And where do the crew sit? It looks like it must be very cramped. Are they all located in the front of the hull? Also, why does the whole top turn? I thought it was a fixed unit until I saw the photo of the wheeled unit on the bottom. It's a vertical launch system, so why does it need to turn to face the target? I know the radar needs to face the target, but they could just mount the radar on its own pivot and make the missile launcher stationary in the chassis. Seems like it'd be a lot simpler. Are the missiles designed to only turn in one direction when they are fired, to make them simpler, so they have to be properly oriented in the right general direction before they are ejected from the launcher? I know naval missiles can turn in any direction after launch...or I assume they can...but that makes them a little more complex. I guess the question is is it better to make the missile more complex or the launcher more complex? AnnaGoFast ( talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC) (BTW, I'm changing the bit where the person is declaring that the Tor is "obviously superior to analogues, as can be seen by comparing charts" (to paraphrase). The tone is wrong, such things shouldn't be stated as fact, they should be stated as "So-and-so BELIEVES/JUDGES/CONSIDERS the Tor missile system to be superior". It's not Wikipedia's place to state who is the best, or who "wins". You can report that someone ELSE calls them the best, but that's it. You don't say "the Ferrari 468 is the best car in the world", you say "Automobile magazine has judged the Ferrari 458 the 'best car in the world'". Besides, I'll check out the references they gave, but if it's just a couple of charts "proving" his/her point, I'm deleting it as original research. I've found this on a couple other articles, armchair experts evaluating systems and declaring them the best based on the numbers they found. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The image with the description of "SA-N-9 firing from the Kirov class cruiser Frunze." is actually showing the PK-2 decoy launcher launching flares.
http://militaryhistory.x10.mx/shippictures/kirov%20class/kirov%2001.jpg
13 - ПУСКОВЫЕ УСТАНОВКИ ВЫСТРЕЛИВАЕМИХ ПОМЕХ = decoy launcher
You can clearly see the bow of the Frunze here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg
The SA-N-9 was never installed on it (they were only installed on Pyotr Velikiy and only on its stern) - the bow SA-N-9 launchers would go on these two large square panels. You can see from the incorrect photo that the launch is taking place just behind the RBU launcher and this is the structure housing the decoys.
So, the image needs to be removed from the Tor wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijozic ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2e/TOR_M2E_rus_2013.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2266{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2006953.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The following statement "Unlike the Tor system, the HQ-17 incorporates an IFF array on top of an electronically scanned array radar, modernized electronics, a new all-terrain launcher, and the ability to datalink with other china systems" is highly misleading. Chances are the editor that put the information paraphrased it wrongly. Both Russian and Chinese Tor system have the same antenna configuration albeit conforming to different military standards. It reads much better if the "unlike" is changed to "like", to reflect the superficial similarity between the two. Or if we want to reflect the source properly, the statement should be changed into, "In comparison to Tor system, HQ-17 is similar in form and function except that it uses Chinese custom electronics...." or something close to it. We can see HQ-17 isn't that different from the outside compared to Russian Tor, on the same source cited for the misleading statement. The current statement implied the original version do not have an IFF antenna and electronically scanned array radar which is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.189.149 ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tor missile system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Twitter link: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1501938378878558220?s=20&t=Tn9VLl_8--YqXMbhDN0MvA Could we add Igor as a new operator of the TOR missile system? I think we should also add Ukrainian farmers as they have conquered a few. Waerth ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this deserves discussion. If the systems are actually in private possession, surely that should be documented. Thoerner ( talk) 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Let Igor have the property. It is privately owned vehicle. There are many cases of operators of vehicle/aircraft recorded in the hands of civilian. Kadrun ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Totaly agree Igor should be on the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.111.229 ( talk) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
At the very least this needs a much better reference than Twitter. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 10:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't know if it's really working with the picture. Maybe it abandonned because it's broken and so, useless. Even if he clearly has one, we can't know if he already has this one and if it's a real working weapon Elikill58 ( talk) 12:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Support but wait 1. Need a source other than twitter, 2. Not confirmed if it is fully operational or not. Otherwise, I don't see why not, but that may open the floodgates for other similar military equipment to have civilian possessions added as operators, perhaps a general designation of "Ukrainian Citizen" or "Ukrainian Militia" for all captured operational equipment, because more than a few have been captured (like that titktok of group of civs driving a tank). JustAnotherWikiUser0816 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Taking possession or owning a device is not the same as being an operator, I don't think Igor is going to have a ready supply of ammunition, spare parts, maintenance schedules etc to really be considered as an operator. As much fun as it would be to list individual farmers, I think the article would be more useful if it just listed working TOR devices that we can confirm have passed into the hands of the Ukraine military Paraphrased ( talk) 00:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Would it be worth it to try and reach out to the account who originally made the tweet (@oryxspioenkop), and ask if there’s any more information regarding “Igor”? A tweet from an unverified account, despite the ≈200k followers said account has, isn’t exactly a reliable source. At least, as far as I know. Kotobdev 01:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Could we perhaps create a new article for civilian ownership of military vehicles? If one doesn’t already exist that is Halalgladiator69 ( talk) 15:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Sgnpkd and Novem Linguae: [3] seemed like a reasonable approach to this. Sure, it needs better references, but then, we're relying on youtube for other references. I think this is something that could be reinstated and expanded, but needs better references. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we just put "several were allegedly repossessed by civilians" at the buklet point for Ukraine. Just spitballing. AwkwrdPrtMskrt ( talk) 05:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no aviable proof that Igor has lost acces to his TOR missile system so dont act like a nerd. Igor from Ukraine ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment.
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
A few news sites have picked up on the "Igor from Ukraine" story - do these count as good enough sources? At least it's a step up from twitter. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.167.72 ( talk) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment.
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 ( talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
A few news sites have picked up on the "Igor from Ukraine" story - do these count as good enough sources? At least it's a step up from twitter. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.167.72 ( talk) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "an Ukrainian civilian" to "a Ukrainian civilian" under "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" NoahT07 ( talk) 12:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The performance of the system in the Ukrainian conflict is not accurately portrayed in the combat history section. The information about Russian variants being towed is also incorrect. KingLar2010 ( talk) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Found a guy who put a message on the wrong section of the talk page. I shall reproduce his post here, verbatim.
hello. can i put in igor who found a abandoned one. as i think i found a good source. https://meaww.com/ukrainian-man-on-a-stroll-claims-20-million-15-million-russian-9-k-330-tor-tank-abandoned-in-forest Ninjaxavier ( talk) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Meaww only has Wikipedia and the original Tweet as sources, and is therefore not reliable. In addition, this discussion seems to have appeared before already. I think, if we can find a reliable source, we should add to the Ukraine count the number of civilians in possession of these.
I removed File:Soviet Udaloy class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov (1990).JPEG because I think the image is irrelevant and its caption is wrong. "SA-N-9 launcher on the Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov" - some editor thought Kinzhal missile compartment was the white structure ahead of 100-mm guns. I found a drawing of Udaloy destroyers online (in Russian, 1st part [4] and 2nd part [5]), according to it, that white structure (#2) is "вентиляторные" (ventilyatornyye - 'fan' per Google, likely the fans of some ventilating system). Centaur271188 ( talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
there was and is no evidence that morocco posseses TOR Missile systems. 92.218.146.145 ( talk) 22:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I know for a fact Igor still owns one of these Bxalber ( talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Igor From Ukraine this may sound like a joke, but seriously a guy from Ukraine found a SAM system while walking in the woods and now he owns it Domino317 ( talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)