Talk:9M311 Tunguska

Links

• Photo of Pantsyr
• Photo of Tunguska

--.: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:

• KBP Instrument Design Bureau
  • Pantsir-S1-O Air Defense Missile System
  • Pantsir-S1 Air Defense Missile/Gun System
  • Tunguska-M1 Air Defense Missile/Gun System

--.: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)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This 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 Post Graduate 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

• (in English) Rosoboronexport - the agency in Russia authorised to sell Russian military equipment to export markets
• (in English) KBP Instrument Design Bureau - manufacturer of the Tunguska M1
• (in Russian) Russian Ministry of Defence
• (in Russian) Russian Federal Agency of Industry
• (in Russian) Military Parade - a famous (notable) Russian military industry publishing house --Russavia 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)