User talk:Dendirrek

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dendirrek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the contributions on the armoured vehicles of the Eastern Bloc. You're doing a wonderful job there! --MoRsE (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! However I still have to figure out some things like how to add images and how to make new pages (MT-LBu etc.). dendirrek (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload pictures to Wikipedia:Commons, from where the pictures then are available to all of the project (all other language wikipedias). Just be careful to make sure that they are licensed for free use, otherwise they risk being removed. If you have taken the photographs yourself and wish to release them under the GNU-license, then it should not post any problems.
As for adding images to the articles, you can use a code like this: [[image:filename.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Image caption]], which will result in a 250 pixel-large framed image located to the right at the place in the article where you wrote the code.
As for new articles, you can simply write the term in the search box to the left and press "Go". When I wrote MT-LBu there, I came to this page, and if you look under the big search box, you'll see a link "Create this page", just click on it and you will be able to start working on it. - In some cases, the pages are redirects to other existing pages, however, you will see a small text, just beneath the header, saying "(Redirected from xxxxxxx)", you can then click on the blue link to come to the page in question. Thereafter it is just to edit the page.
If you run into some problems, then feel free to contact me, or any other administrator, as we have a little more privileged editing functions, and can move certain pages, release or prevent some pages from being editied etc. I'd be glad to help. --MoRsE (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might wish to check out the Weaponry task force, or even sign up for it. There you will meet other contributors, who are editing the articles within the same scope as you have been. The page also presents the infoboxes, categories etc that are normally used when writing an article about weaponry. --MoRsE (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTR 3

Hello Dendirrek, could you please cite your sources for the operators' section in the BTR 3 article. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 22:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bogdan. Most of the info came from Jane's and the UN register of conventional arms. I'm not making anything up :-) so it would be most appreciated if you put the Variants and Operators list back in the BTR-3 page. Best regards dendirrek (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you have cite the references in the article not just as an external link, many editors will mercilessly delete any questionable content that isn't cited. Also, if you're interested in military articles, you might want to take a look at the military history wikiproject. Happy edits :), Bogdan ^що? 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrij vecher! Well, I wanted to add these sources in the reference list, with a small number, but when I select "edit" all I see is the word "reflist" and not the complete list where I could add something. can you explain me how to edit the reference list. dendirrek (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the referencing process maybe be somewhat confusing at first. The whole point is not to cite in the "references" section, but in the article. In other words, to cite (with a small number, ha-ha) just put "<ref> source </ref> "behind whatever you want to cite and what you type within the tags will appear in the reflist.

So for example, when we have a statement that needs citation, "Wikipedia is a website". All you need to do is find a source and place it within the ref tags. Like so...Wikipedia is a website ^[1]. (I wrote "Appears down here" in the tags).

References

^ Appears down here

If what I'm saying sounds stupid, it's all explained in detail at WP:CITE#HOW. Hope it helps, Bogdan ^що? 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bogdan, I know what to do now! dendirrek (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources

What are your sources? Can you give me the addresses of websites you're using? Can you give me the names of books/military magazines you're using as reference? - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SuperTank17, I listed some of my sources on the bottom of the T-55 page: the Valka forum and the excellent German book Deutsche Militaerfahrzeuge about vehicles of the East and West German armies. Both confirm that the VT-55A and JVBT-55A were build in Czechoslovakia. Also I got some info from a friend who is very well informed and has access to technical manuals from the JNA. Best regards. dendirrek (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: T-80 nick-names

Hello.

I must agree that what you say makes a lot of sense but the name of the ATGM system used in T-80B wasn't Kobra but 9K112-2. "Kobra" was the nickname for 9M112 ATGM.

Regards. SuperTank17 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes the systems and missiles have different names, but very often it's one and the same. All my sources say that the name of the 9K112-1 kompleks is "Kobra". And often the names of the missile/system were given to the "launch vehicle". The 9P148 for instance also carries the nick-name "Konkurs". Anyhow, it's not of imprortance in or discussion about the T-80 models; tanks without the "Kobra" system/missile are very unlikely to carry that name. Have also a look at this very well researched Russian site about the T-80 and where only the UD model is called Beryoza: t80leningrad Also note that the nick-name "Kobra" is used for the 9K112-1 system :-)

Something else. Note that SMT M1989 is in fact the NATO name for the T-80UD, not the T-80U. The thing is that the T-80UD was observed before the U model and was given a temporary NATO code. Later in the West everyone believed that this was the T-80U and only after a while people realized that there was a dieselized version. To make it a little more complicated: the T-80UD was initially indeed simply known as T-80U or "T-80U with diesel engine" in the Soviet army. dendirrek (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your sources are much more reliable than mine. I already applied the changes to the article. Regards. SuperTank17 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: T-55

Hello.

Thank you for letting me know about the errors I'll try to correct them now. I have a little more time now so I can do it. My main goal is to make those articles as close to the truth as possible so that people can learn as much as possible about the subject of the articles. So they won't have to search through books, magazines and Internet to learn about it.

Let me know about any other errors you may find and I'll try to remove them to the best of my ability.

Regards. SuperTank17 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I completed deleting errors you pointed out but if Abu Fatima isn't a Sundanese modernization of T-55 then what is this thing here: http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-55_series/abu-fatima/abufatima.html

Regards. SuperTank17 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The previous message that I send you was meant for someone else but because for quite some time I'm mainly talking with you I didn't bother to check the user name. I just about now understood my error. Thanks anyway.

Regards - SuperTank17 11:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ramses tank

Hello.

JED The Military Equipment Directory has an article about Ramses tank which is supposed to be a T-54 upgrade. On Wikipedia there's a Ramses II tank which is supposed to be based on T-55. Were there two Ramses tanks (one, modernization of T-54 and the other one the modernization of T-55) or is it just that the name on the JED The Military Equipment Directory is missing "second"?

Regards. - SuperTank17 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, Ramses II was an upgrade of the T-54: it was also known as T-54E. But it's of course possible to upgrade the T-55 to the same standard. But I guess you could remove this entry from the T-55 chapter.

While several sources claim that series production of the Ramses II started and that in 1996, already 260 were in service, there is no proof whatsoever of that. It's almost certain that this programme was halted after Egypte received several hundred M60A1/A3's and M1A1's. Jane's Armour and Artillery 2003-2004 also says that by early 2003, series production hadn't started yet. However, some older T-54/55 tanks were probably fitted with a 105mm gun, smoke grenade launchers and a German-made AEG search light. dendirrek 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early T-54 models

Hello.

There some very serious differences between what's written on Wikipedia and JED The Military Equipment Directory:

It says that the first model of the T-54, the T-54-1 was an initial trials version and T-54-2 was first version to be build in quantity.

It also says that the standard T-54 wasn't the T-54-3 but a different vehicle.

It also says that T-54-2 appeared in 1947, T-54-3 in 1949 and T-54 in 1951.

Can you please clear this up?

Regards. - SuperTank17 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! As I wrote before, be careful with JED because it lists "variants" that don't even exist. In the case of the T-54 I'd say that the confusion comes from the fact that there are different Russian and NATO model numbers. To avoid confusion, I always use the Russian term obrazets (Obr) instead of "model" in my designators list. I agree with Wiki's entry on the T-54 but my sources (Zaloga/Hull/Markov) say that the T-54 obr.1946g or T-54-1 was build only in small numbers (not 1,200) for state trials that apparantly were a fiasco. The planned series production of the T-54 from 1947 was halted until the implementation of modifications. So the T-54 obr.1949g orT-54-2 was the first version built in significant numbers (from 1950). T-54-1's were later rebuilt to at least this standard. I hope this answers your questions. dendirrek 10:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-55AM2 Merida

Hello.

I found this [1]

Was there a T-55AM2 with Merida FCS?

Regards. - SuperTank17 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed: you found it on JED. What can I say. No, there is no T-55AM2 "Merida". The only AM2 is the Czechoslovakian version, but some people (including JED) put this label on every upgraded T-55 tank, whether its Polish, Russian, Czechoslovakian etc. Again: don't accept everything that you find on JED. Sometimes you'll find exactly the same version of a vehicle under three or four different designators! And if a part is missing from a tank because it was lost it's already a new "variant". Need I say more? I think that our Wiki article is pretty much complete and correct as it is right now. dendirrek 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the fact that a part is missing or the fact that there's a new part make it a different vehicle? Remember we're talking about tanks that were mass produced and therefore all were the same when they left the factory.

Regards. - SuperTank17 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not talking about modifications. For example, tanks that are fitted with "Kontakt-1" ERA sometimes have the bricks removed (to prevent damage or loss during exercise etc.) so only the mounts remain. For JED, that's a variant. Another example: a command vehicle were the portable (!)generator has been removed (for maintenance maybe), that's also a new "variant". I'm sure you agree with me that's nonsence. dendirrek 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what pointed out is nonsense but the T-55AMV with additional ERA on the hull sides can be considered a variant.

Regards. - SuperTank17 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except for 1 picture, all my T-55MV/AMV images show the tanks with the full aray of ERA bricks on the turret, hull front and hull sides (although on some the skirts have been removed). Maybe this one picture shows a simpler "version" for export (same as the T-72B/S) but the tanks that were exported to Syria, Ethiopia, Uganda etc. are most probably former Russian army tanks with the full aray. dendirrek 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-55MV5 and T-55MV6

Good evening.

I'm guess that those two modernizations are also something that you don't agree about with JED but what are those tanks in following pictures if they aren't T-55AMV6?

[2]

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning ST. Those versions are already covered (also in the Wiki article) as M5 and M6. I don't know why JED mentions them once again under a different name. By the way, neither of these names is confirmed as far as I know; when the "M5" was displayed in Omsk, it was called Modernized T-55 AM.

Are you still planning of spliting the T-54/55 article in two? Best regards. dendirrek (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Of course I'm still planning to do it but I didn't have much time recently. However the Christmas is coming and that means I'm going to have a little more free time than usual and maybe I'll try to do that than. The biggest problem I'm facing here is the selection of T-54 data and T-55 data. The big problem here are also the pictures which are often labeled as T-54/T-55 or T-55 even though they are T-54. Of course there are some differences between T-54 and T-55 for example the dome-shaped ventilator on the turret roof which T-55 lacks but those differences are sometimes either difficult to spot or aren't visible at all.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a T-80AV and a T-80AKV?

Good evening.

I was just reading through some stuff on JED site about T-80 models and I came across T-80AV and T-80AKV which are supposed to be T-80A and T-80AK with ERA. But according to my research the basic T-80A model was already fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA.

So I decided to ask you this question as you know some very reliable sources: Was there a T-80AV and a T-80AKV?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As far as I know there is not even a T-80A. That's a designator that is often used for the Ob.219A, the "early T-80U". According to my sources the first model (1982) didn't have Kontakt-1, only from 1984. You could call the 1984 model "T-80AV" but that's not an official designator. There is also the one with a second whip antenna, "T-80AKV", but this is also not official. So although there are a couple of different models indeed, there's no separate designator for each of them. Not that I know of at least. Regards. dendirrek (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

T-72PPM

Hello.

Why did you removed the T-72PPM? There's a photographic evidence of a firefighting vehicle based on T-72.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there's not: the photograph shown in JED is of the "Impuls-2M" which is based on the T-62 (5 road wheels, driver's position left). dendirrek (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-72G and T-72GM

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) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZSU-57-2 or ZSU-57/2?

Good Evening.

What is the more correct designation for ZSU-57-2? ZSU-57-2 or ZSU-57/2? I met both of these designations and they appear to be used at random.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Bosnian Serb ZSU-57-2

Good evening.

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BMP-1GR

Good evening.

I think that BMP-1GR is something like the Leopard-1A5(BE) used by Belgium which was just a designation for Leopard V tanks exported to Belgium.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST,

No, you're way off here. Leopard 1A5(BE) is the official designator for upgraded Leopard 1(BE) tanks (the Leopard 1-V was the Dutch version). It's not "just a designation" but a different model with local upgrades. The name BMP-1GR is not used by the Helenic army, not even unofficial. The type is sometimes even reported as BMP-1 SP-2 (that was the East-German name as you know and that is written in the technical manuals). Indeed there are external differences between the Greek model and the German BMP's and it would be more convenient if it got a new designator but it didn't. Of course you can write BMP-1GR (and T-55AM2H etc) in the Wiki article but it's not correct. Good night. dendirrek (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening.

I modified the information about it in the article accordingly.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMP-1PM

Good evening.

JED and Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide suggest that the BMP-1P is simply a BMP-1 armed with 9M111 Fagot (AT-4 Spigot) ATGM, 9M111-2 Fagot (AT-4B Spigot B) ATGM, 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5 Spandrel) ATGM or 9M113M Konkurs-M (AT-5B Spandrel B) ATGM instead of 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) ATGM. While upgrades like six smoke grenade dischargers and kovriki turret armour were added in BMP-1PM version.

Is this true?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

My Russian sources only mention the designator BMP-1P (Ob.765Sp4). All P models have the pintle mount for the AT-4/5 launcher, and some "late production" vehicles are additionally fitted with kovriki armour and/or "Tucha" SGD's. As far as I know, the BMP-1PM name is not correct. dendirrek (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMP-1E and BMP-2E = T-62E?

Good evening.

I have another question: Are those designators for "BMP-1/BMP-2 fitted with appliqué armour for use in Afghanistan" real or are those the same case as the T-62E?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Indeed, BMP-2E was - like T-62E - a Western designator. The correct Russian name is BMP-2D and this one is already listed in the article. I added a comment about the BMP-2E designator (and removed the BMP-2A which is complete rubbish). I guess BMP-1E is wrong as well but I couldn't find a correct Russian designation. Regards. dendirrek (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Image:BM Bulat.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:BM Bulat.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:BM Bulat.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:BM Bulat.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I uploaded an identical image (Image:T64bm.jpg) months ago, I see no reason for keeping two. Bogdan ^що? 04:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dobroye utro! Oops, my bad. The Bulat image I found in one of your articles was another one (same source) and I never noticed that you also had uploaded this one. I'll remove it. dendirrek (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you modified the link already and since I do not have the right to delete items, please go ahead. dendirrek (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Доброе утро. I do not have those rights either, we must wait for an administrator to come by and delete it. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRDM-2 with a turret from BMP-1?

Hello.

I found this picture on JED: http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_007.jpg

The picture most probably shows one of many wrecks of Soviet vehicles left in Afghanistan but this one is particularly interesting because it looks like it has (or at least had) a turret from BMP-1 or maybe even BRM-1 as it doesn't seem to have the ATGM launcher.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

Don't be fooled by that image. It is simply a BMP-1 turret laying on top of a BRDM-2, and not a "new variant" :-) dendirrek (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The turret by the way is from a BMP-1P: note the pintle for the 9P135 ATGM launcher on top of the roof. dendirrek (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRDM-2 without the spotlight.

Hello.

It says in the article about BRDM-2 that it has a spotlight in front of the front hatches but there are many pictures of BRDM-2 without the spotlight. Is it because it was taken off or was it added in later production models?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infra-red search light is removable. Normally it is located on top of the commander's periscope on the right side. You see the same by the way on the BTR-60PB, BTR-80 etc: often the spotlight is present, but in several cases it has been removed. Regards - dendirrek (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some BRDM-2 varriant pictures from JED

Hello.

Do you have any idea what those vehicles below might be?

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_009.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_010.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_011.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_013.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_014.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_015.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_016.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_017.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/afv/bravo/brdm-2_series/z-unknown/unk-brdm2_020.jpg

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Most show different proposals for the Russian BRDM-2M programme. Actually the type that was selected is not shown in these pictures. Picture 009 shows the turret-less BI-1, pictures 015 and 016 a version with MA4 turret (also mounted on the MT-LBM), picture 014 is in fact a Ukrainian upgrade of the BTR-70 (!) with turret "Bug" and active protection system "Zaslon", and 020 shows a standard BRDM-2 but with the KPVT removed. dendirrek (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IR driving lights

Hello.

I have a question. The BRDM-2 has four infra red driving lights but are the driving lights on BRDM-1, D-442 FUG and D-944 PSzH also infra red?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IR light is in fact nothing more than a normal light fitted with an IR filter. All the vehicles you've mentioned have (normally) 2+2 lights in front that can be fitted with an IR filter or with a cover that reduces the light emmision ("cat's eyes"). dendirrek (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "PT-76 Model 3" without fume extractor. I presume this error is based on the fact that some pictures of the PT-76B show the vehicle with the muzzle brake temporarily removed. The dome at the back of the PT-76 is the same as found on top of the T-54: an air filter. Be sure to check the information you find in JED because unfortunately it contains a lot of mistakes. dendirrek (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi OT-62A picture.

Hello.

I'm having a problem with this Iraqi OT-62A pciture that I found on JED:

http://www.jedsite.info/fulltrack-oscar/oscar/ot-62_series/iraq-aa/iqaa_001.jpg

It says that it is an Iraqi OT-62A armed with Czechoslovak twin 30 mm M-53/59 anti-aircraft auto canons in an open-tub mount but I can't seem to find side hatches and I'm not sure if the second projecting bay really is there. Can you help me with this?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't need my help since you already noticed that it's indeed not a OT-62 but a BTR-50PK. Good night - dendirrek (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Type 63 variant

Hello.

I have been researching the Type 63 recently and I found two pictures of a strange new variant I can't identify.

The vehicle that I'm talking about has angular turret and is armed with 105 mm rifled gun, the same as the one fitted in Type 63-I, Type 63G and Type 63A tanks.

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-type/type-63_series/zts-63m/zts63m_001.jpg - the variant I'm talking about next to a Type 63-I or Type 63G

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/images/type63_04large.jpg - the variant I'm talking about next to a Type 63-I or Type 63G

Do you have any idea what variant that maybe?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As so often, the listing on JED is very confusing. There are only three main models, namely the basic model Type 63 (WZ211), the prototype Type 63HG with 105mm gun in a round welded turret and finally the Type 63A or ZTS63A (WZ213) with the angular turret. Of the latter, there is also an improved version, the ZTS63A-1. Regards - dendirrek (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Variants such as Type 63-I and Type 63G are confirmed by other websites such as the SinoDefense. According to all the information I gathered the Type 63-I is the variant armed with 105 mm rifled gun in a modified cast turret. Type 63G is supposed to be a further development of Type 63-I with an enhanced hull which improves vehicle's performance while it's swimming at long distances from the amphibious assault ships to the shore. Type 63A is said to be based on Type 63G and has a large number of improvements of which a full list you can find in the article about Type 63 which I wrote basing on different sources. Type 63HG is said to be a prototype vehicle with improved amphibious capabilities including a rounded bow nose extension.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only listed the main models. There is indeed also a Type 63-I (WZ211-1) and even a Type 63-II (WZ211-2), but those are modified versions of the original Type 63. The Type 63-I is actually the production version, whereas the first Type 63 with 6 instead of 12 cylinder engine was build in small numbers. The Type 63-II has a laser range finder and other improvements. Type 63G or Type 63Gai (meaning "modernized") is simply another name for the Type 63HG; you will notice that the discriptions are very similar.

My main source for Chinese equipment is china-defense.com. dendirrek (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Is this 6 cylinder engine the same 6 cylinder, 4 stroke, in line, water cooled, diesel engine developing 240 hp (179 kW) at 1800 rpm as the one in Type 60, Chinese copy of PT-76?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Yes indeed, the early Type 63 had the same engine as the Type 60 light tank. dendirrek (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Romanian modern artillery systems

Yes, I can give a source: Stroea, Adrian; Băjenaru, Gheorghe (2010) (in Romanian). Artileria română în date și imagini (Romanian artillery in data and images). Editura Centrului Tehnic-Editorial al Armatei. ISBN 978-606-524-080-3. Page 161. Mr. Stroea is the alternate head of training and doctrine for the Romanian Land Forces, I'm pretty sure he is a reliable source. Moreover, there are some small articles in the Romanian media about joint cooperation between Communist Romania and PRC after 1968. (http://www.jurnalul.ro/scinteia/jurnalul-national/relatiile-militare-romano-chineze-print-530126.html)

The M81 and M82 were joint coop between PRC and Communist Romania. Documentation was usually supplied by PRC, while the Romanian engineers improved or adapted the designs.Also, the M1975/77 100 mm AT gun was designed by Romanian engineers and built using Chinese technology (machinery) at Arsenal Resita.--Mircea87 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, that sounds like a reliable source indeed! I'll try to find a copy of that book next time I'm in Romania. And actually I shouldn't have been surprised by the cooperation with PRC, after all the TR-85 has a Chinese-made laser range finder. dendirrek (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be downloaded for free (legally) here: http://www.rft.forter.ro/17_bibvirt/pdf/004-artileria-romana-in-date-si-imagini.pdf --Mircea87 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I found it one minute after I sent my reply :-) dendirrek (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Appears down here

[1]