Talk:9K121 Vikhr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)