Talk:9K121 Vikhr

Design designation

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)

Bias

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 70.15.4.226 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

Whilst others may take it as a criticism of Russian technology! It is a fair comment. Acorn897 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9K121 Vikhr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425194746/http://www.arms-expo.ru:80/049055052048124050054057054.html to http://www.arms-expo.ru/049055052048124050054057054.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another article making claims but not providing citations to evidence the claims "The high pinpoint target hit probability (reported 0.95 against stationary targets) is provided by the automatic..................... " No citation is provided to justify a claim that it is 0.95 accurrate. Where this has come from really needs to be provided so readers can judge for themselves if the source is reputable or something from RT.

If a citation is not provided then the article should be amended .

Zakalwe101 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)