User talk:Vladimir Historian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 The comment on the picture. 3 Ob'yekt 914 based on PT-76? 4 Russian letters in references 5 Service history of BMP-1 6 MLI-84 7 The mention of small reload hatch in protection issues section. 8 BMP-1 pictures 9 BMP-1 picture. 10 Reference

[edit] Welcome

[edit] The comment on the picture.

Hello.

The problem is that the comment "try to" can seem biased to some people.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Really? In such a case this is a problem of such strange men, but not the problem of the article! But you can leave the comment as it is because it is not of significant importance in the context of the article. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ob'yekt 914 based on PT-76?

Hello.

I was wondering. According to the sources I have access to, the Ob'yekt 914 was based on the BTR-50, not the PT-76. That makes a difference because if it was based on the BTR-50, it used it's superstructure.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

According to my sources, the ob'yekt 914 was based on details from PT-76. This also corresponds well with the manufacturer documentation (and letters of designer I. Gavalov) I had chance to find in archive. Online source - http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/armour-rus-obj/a_914.htm (the best online source about world's IFVs in Russian), note line 5 from above - based on PT-76. But you know, of course, that BTR-50P was based on PT-76 chassis in its turn, so this fact can cause such kind of confusions.

P.S. Please, see my talk with Karabinier about Estonian BMP IFVs, I think he is right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karabinier

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian letters in references

Hello! Please, when you convert the references in Russian (thanks for this), please, pay attention to the right letter encoding otherwise cyrillic letters look like strange senseless symbols after your work!

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello !

Thanks for the report !

Could you actually provide me the page where it happened, so that I can fix that bug ? ;)

NicDumZ ~ 12:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I've already fixed all those bugs (in articles about 2S3, BMP-1, ZSU-57-2), no problems at all. But, please, pay attention to letter encodings in future (just compare your final change with the title of corresponding online source)

Just as example (from the history) of your recent work (article about 2S3) to illustrate the GREAT BUG: яЮЛНУНДМЮЪ ЮПРХККЕПХИЯЙЮЪ СЯРЮМНБЙЮ 2я3 "юЙЮЖХЪ" (senseless set of strange symbols :)) I replaced it with the correct phrase Самоходная артиллерийская установка 2С3 "Акация"

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service history of BMP-1

Hello.

I'll take care of that.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MLI-84

Hello.

First of all MLI-84 isn't exactly a modification of BMP-1. It's a copy made completely out of Romanian-made components with a few improvements including the 12.7 mm DShK 1938/46 anti-aircraft heavy machine gun. Sort of like the TR-125.

As for that number of produced MLI-84 IFVs, I took it from this article: List of equipment of the Romanian Land Forces.

Maybe the number that you found is a number of MLI-84 IFVs in active service.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I consider addition of DShK and other Romanian improvements as modification of BMP-1 (actually all BMP-1 were modifications, aka additions of something to original vehicle). As for 177 MLI-84 - at least all sources (not many, around 7-8) I could find mention the amount of produced or in service as 177 always, but none mentions 400 MLI-84. That is why I asked you to help to solve this problem. At the moment I believe (from what I read) to the amount of built MLI-84 as 177.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The mention of small reload hatch in protection issues section.

Hello.

Are you telling me that if the gunner stood on the turret and reloaded the ATGM there than the NBC suit wouldn't be destroyed? ;)

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am telling you that if the gunner stood in his open turret hatch (not on the turret in this case, of course) as in the case with BMP-1P and "Konkurs" this makes gunner protection from NBC (and in much more real conditions - from sniper bullets and shell fragments) worser than in the case with BMP-1 and "Malyutka" (reloading from the special small hatch by two hands from inside the vehicle).

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok let me put it like this: The sentence makes it seem as if that small hatch was the cause of the problem. Besides if someone wants to know exactly how the reloading in BMP-1 and BMP-1P was done, he/she can look it up in the description or in the BMP-1 variants article. You yourself said that the article was getting very big.

About your text about how BMP-1's turret wasn't penetrated during the Chechen War: It has absolutely nothing or whatsoever to do with penetration of ammo and fuel storages etc. I suggest to move it to the description section because that's where it belongs.

Also could you please work on your English, please? Sometimes when I read what you write, my eyes start to hurt from all the mistakes and errors. ;)

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As for the small hatch for reloading of "Malyutka" ATGM - I think that the corresponding phrase is absolutely in place and it illustrates very well the aforementioned problem with the NBC protection. As for the info that BMP's turret [front armor!] wasn't penetrated during the Chechen War [or to be correct - there are no such cases in analytic articles and official army reports] - I will think about the best place for this, perhaps, you are right. As for my English - thanks, I don't think so as I am writing quite many articles for US and British journals and editors never correct me, just mentioning that I prefer to use quite long sentences :) Also I spent quite many years in Western Europe, working there and giving seminars also. But sometimes my eyes start to hurt from all your misprints also :) But I agree with your English style corrections so I recover my old texts seldom.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Placing the info about the loading hatch there makes it seem as if the gunner could very well not destroy the NBC protection suit by simply getting out of the turret.

About that turret armour info: I am right. I have enough experience editing Wikipedia to know what is appropriate and what isn't. It comes with time.

Sorry but I don't see how you could have done all that and still write like this in English. DMorpheus is right. Even I can see that your English is flawed. I can give you examples of your errors if you truly don't believe me.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Well, I don't see any problems with mentioning the loading hatch in the corresponding abstract. So lets leave it as it is. About the turret armour - I agree, lets move this to the description section. I don't have enough experience editing Wikipedia still but I have enough experience editing journal articles. This is better experience in my opinion ;) As for possible errors. No problem at all, you can provide me with examples if you want. But I very much believe that this represents a question of different styles and nothing more. Perhaps, a few errors could happen because of fast typing sometimes - but I am trying to check texts again in several hours. I see that DMorpheus is right about service history of BMP-1 also where you wrote a huge amount of hard-to-read info about Russian units ;) I also prefer to write the info in my own words according to Wikipedia rules and not to copy paragraphs from online sources which is the easiest way (I've noticed that somebody prefers this to do) ;)

The recent example from you:

Sweden upgraded all of its Pbv 501 IFVs to Pbv 501A standard and few were upgraded futher to serve as command vehicles. Although they were withdrawn from service, they are still in possetion of Swedish military. Currently Sweden is offering to sell their Pbv 501A IFVs and spare parts for them to other countries. Although the original plan is to sell them to a single sovereign customer (state), there's also a possibility of selling them in baches consiting of more than 50 vehicles per batch. The potential custurmers are to express thier intrest before 16 June 2008 and submit their bids before 15 August 2008. Before any trasaction can be made, it must be accpeted by Swedish authorities. Also because Sweden holds the German end user certificate, the transfer of the end user certificate has to be accepted by German authorities. The other option that Swedish military is considring is scrapping the vehicles which would be done in Sweden according to Swedish regulations

Italic type is mine. And are you talking about the errors of other authors, my dear friend??!! My eyes start to hurt is an excellent expression indeed ;)

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that I was a master at using English. Also, the text that you picked was written when I was tired and semi-conscious. Also the sole fact that other people also make mistakes doesn't mean that you're free to do the same and don't bother with improving your skill at English.

As for examples:

Nevertheless, no any penetrations of front armour of BMP/BMD turret were noticed during the strong combats in Chechnya because of small size of the turret and its strengthened front armour.

First of all, what do you mean by "no any"? Another thing that bothers me is your use of word "combats". While it isn't a spelling error, it just doesn't sound right. It's the same way with a word "congratulation". When you want to congratulate someone you say "congratulations", not "congratulation" although it isn't a spelling error. Also why do you use a word "strong" to describe those battles? When describing a battle it's better to use a word "intense" rather than "strong", because a battle can't be "strong". And why do use a word "strengthened" when talking about BMP-1 turret's front armour? What is it strengthened from? This would have made more sense if you were writing about a variant of BMP-1 but you're writing about a basic model. If you wanted to say that the armour was strong it's better to use a word "thick" because it was it's thickness that made it the best protected spot on the vehicle.

Here's how it should have been written:

"Nevertheless, no penetrations of BMP/BMD turret's front armour were noticed during the intense fighting in Chechnya because the turret was a small target and had a thick front armour."

Also there's quite a difference between a journal and an encyclopedia.

Here's my conclusion: Instead of finding excuses for your skill at English you should try to improve it. At least that's what I will do. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! But I didn't find excuses I just mentioned that it is quite strange for me to hear that I need to improve my English (but I write historical articles mainly not technical). As I am not a native speaker in English I should improve it for sure, of course. Your example illustrates not the grammar mistakes or errors (this almost never happened) but use of the words which should be fully adequate to context. With this I can agree indeed because I translate texts from Russian into English sometimes directly. In Russian article the original phrase was "strengthened turret armour" [means that it was more thick than hull armour and turret side armour].

I need one advice - I would like to replace "Ob'yekt" with more understandable for readers "Object" everywhere. What do you think about this? Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that you didn't notice how direct translation can look like. Try using online translators and you'll see that a direct translation isn't the way to go.

About the "Ob'yekt" issue: I believe it's better to leave it as it is. This was introduced here on English Wikipedia by Dendirrek who is a specialist on the topic of Soviet AFVs.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we are better specialists on the topic of Soviet AFVs, aren't we? ;) In my opinion "Object" is more correct as it represents translation of Russian word but not its transliteration. But lets leave it as it is indeed as knowledgable guys understand the term anyway. If I remember correct I have already mentioned somewhere inside the BMP article that the term means "object" for clarification.

One more advice - what about Abkhazia in the list of operators. This state is not recognized officialy by UN and as I am not a Russian nationalist ;) I suggest to remove Abkhazia from the list and mentioned the corresponding info in a paragraph about Georgia.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Including or excluding Abkhazia is matter that can't be easily solved as there are many people who for political or personal reasons would want to either include or exclude it. I, as a wikipedian, am taking a neutral position when it comes to this matter and I think that it should be left as it is because this is a "list of operators". Not a "list of politically recognized operators". It's the same with including Taiwan in list of M60 MBT operators. It's not politically recognized by most of the world as an independent state but it is still included.

My conclusion: Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia for that matter) is NOT a place for politics. It's a place for real information. And Abkhazia has its armed forces in (not political) reality. Regards . - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion. Lets leave Abkhazia as it is. But as for "politically recognized operators" - for example, if some rebellion forces or forest bandit bands somewhere in the world have some AFV and their "own army", should we include them in such kind of lists with their own flag?! :) This is the list of STATES. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In this case word "operator" means an organization that uses the said AFVs or vehicles based on them (as long as those vehicles don't have their separate articles). They are listed as states because each army serves its country. The rebel groups or militaristic organizations without a clear nationality should be listed with their name and a flag (if they have one that is).

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated situation with a strong political aspect I think (because authors from corresponding country who support their government policy can delete all "their" rebel groups as independent operators). Fortunately, all lists of operators I have a chance to see here corresponds to states in the majority of cases. In my opinion we should base such list according to the info from the well known reference-books, for example Jane's or World Defence Almanac. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMP-1 pictures

Hello.

I would propose a different approach. Instead of deleting already existing pictures we should focus on finding pictures that would illustrate other conflicts as well as BMP-1 IFVs in Soviet service. I only know of two such pictures that we can use: [1] and [2].

Also it would be great if we could find a picture of UTD-20 engine for the maneuverability section.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The already existed photos shouldn't be deleted, of course. But you must remember about 100 kb limit. So if we find good photos of BMP-1 IFVs in Soviet service they should replace some photos of Iraqi BMP-1 IFVs. I can provide you with many online sources which have colour photos in good resolution of BMP-1 IFVs in Chechnya, amphibious ability of BMP-1 and UTD-20 diesel also. But I have no time to communicate with the owners of these online sources for license (Russian Wikipedia neglects this rule sometimes, and, most probably, the Russian owners are completelly satisfy with a just mentioning of their sites in the Wiki photo description. But lets try to obey the Wiki rules) - I can provide you with the necessary online sites and corresponding e-mails from there, but communications/negotiations will be yourth, do you agree?

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's no limit. There are many articles that are well over 100 kb long.

About possible negotiations: Well in two weeks time I'll have more time than ever and I'll might just do that.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As for 100 kb limit. Ok, this is a good new but have you noticed that Wikipedia alerts you during corresponding edits about 100 kb and asks for possible division of the article. As for the sources - for example, from here - http://www.rusarmy.ru/gallery.php?id=17 But there is no e-mail of the author of the site, unfortunately :( http://www.rusarmy.ru/photo.php?id=99 - Russian BMP-1 after crossing of water barrier, note the red signal buoy. http://www.rusarmy.ru/photo.php?id=101 - excellent illustration of amphibious ability of BMP-1 http://www.rusarmy.ru/photo.php?id=102 - already obsolete but still widely used BMP-1 in Chechnya http://www.rusarmy.ru/photo.php?id=105 - - BMP-1 in Kosovo

If there are no e-mail addresses than how are we supposed to contact the copyright holders?

Also the article already crossed the 10 kb limit if we count the variants article. Also I think that our primary goal should be to make the article as accurate as possible.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! There is no e-mail address, but the nickname of the site owner is Maxpain and I found his ICQ from the site - 215875915 Is it helpful for you? Please, let me know about your progress and if you have some problems - I will try to help you as much as I can.

Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMP-1 picture.

Hello.

I was just closely inspecting one of the BMP-1 pictures (the one on the right) and I came into conclusion that there are no BMP-2 IFVs on that picture (and the original caption says "Captured Iraqi BMP-1 and BMP-2 IFVs at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP), Iraq, during Operation Iraq Freedom."). From what I see there 6 (7 if we count the one on the bottom) BMP-1 IFVs and an unknown vehicle that reminds me of MT-LB, on this picture.

What do you think?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I completelly agree with you! Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the vehicle on the far left?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure for 100% but looks similar to MT-LB indeed, Iraqi MT-LB: http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/2005/January/pictures/iraq/MT-LB_Iraqi_01.JPG http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/2005/January/pictures/iraq/MTLB_ZU-23-2_Iraq_04.jpg This is MT-LB with SNAR-10 (MT-LB with a radar of enemy artillery positions fixing) I believe: http://armyreco.ifrance.com/Russe/vehicules_legers/MT-LB/Snar-10/MT-LB_Snar-10_Russia_02.jpg

Regards (and respect ;))--Vladimir Historian (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Hello.

Can you please give me the names of the references you used while writing this part of the BMP-1 article:

but they were able to capture or destroy 40 to 60 Egyptian BMP-1 IFVs and 50 to 60 Syrian BMP-1 IFVs besides other AFVs. Around half of lost Syrian BMP-1 IFVs were abandoned because of mechanical failures and inability of inexperienced crews for routine maintenance of new vehicles. One of the first captured BMP-1 was transported to Ben-Gurion for detailed investigation by Israeli and American specialists. Syrians were not very satisfy with BMP-1 IFVs - they liked its speed and maneuvrability but they found that 2A28 "Grom" gun was effective against enemy tanks at a range not more than 500 m and it was hard to aim 9M14M "Malyutka" ATGM from inside the vehicle while on the move. Syrians said that time: "BMP is like a Mercedes but we need just a simple Ford".

Unfortunately we got some Egyptian who deleted it because of a lack of reference.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! It became too hard working in Wikipedia - you continued to post all photos of Iraqi BMP-1 you are able to find, Egyptian friend delets the obviously correct info about Syrian(!) BMP-1s :):) May be it will be better for me to abandon work here as it seems to be the big waste of time, because it is much more interesting for me to post new and detailed info and take into consideration the positive requests of other authors/friends than to fight with them and restore my view [I hope very correct] of the article again and again.

Well, there are reports of Soviet specialists sent to Syria for analysis of use of BMP-1 where they described many things such as very detailed descriptions of every damage from shells/bullets/anti-tank grenades they had a chance to investigate as well as opinions of Syrian tankmen/infantrymen about the new technique and the very big problems with the technical maintenance of BMP-1 as Syrians received them recently just before the war and they had almost no experience how to solve a very small technical problem even. And that was the main reason why the first combat use of BMP-1 wasn't successful (several BMP-1 were abandoned and captured absolutely intact just because Syrian drivers didn't use the right gear to overcome obstacles near Israeli trenches, drivers didn't know how to use fire-extinguishing system manually so several vehicles were abandoned after insignificant damage and fire of engine compartment, etc.). Also the successful use of "Malyutka" ATGM (and 73mm "Grom" gun also) on the move requires an experienced gunner who trained a lot with this before but the majority of Syrian BMP's gunners used ATGM for the first time in their life during that offensive only. Partially this is described a little bit in the book by Malyshev [see the reference list of the article] but the best online source I could find upon your request (in Russian) which is in full correspondance with the aforementioned info concerning BMP-1 are the five articles "Armoured vehicles in Middle-East wars" by very good historian Mikhail Nikolsky, they were publushed in Russian journal "Tekhnika i vooruzhenie" ("Equipment and weapons") No.3-5, 1999. I couldn't find all parts online but some of them.

! http://mukhin.vif2.ru/tanks_at_battle/aiw3.html (Part III of the article. Yom Kippur War) - with the aforementioned info about BMP-1 ! http://oldi.nnm.ru/vojna_sudnogo_dnya (info about the Yom Kippur War in one forum based and cited Part III by Nikolsky). http://mukhin.vif2.ru/tanks_at_battle/aiw4.html (Part IV of the article. Combats of Egyptian Front) ! http://mukhin.vif2.ru/tanks_at_battle/aiw5.html (Part V of the article. Combats of Syrian Front) - with the aforementioned info about BMP-1 !! - E.V. Egers. BMP - combat vehicle of Soviet infantry. Military technical series No. 50 (БМП - боевая машина Советской пехоты. Военно-техническая серия No. 50), Tornado. This is like Osprey Vanguard series on Russian. ALL info about the use of BMP-1 during the Yom Kippur War I posted in our article.

! - use this as references about the use of BMP-1 during the Yom Kippur war !! - this is especially, according to your request.

Thank you for the help! I will do this also, of course, but tonight only, perhaps. Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Have you noticed that you make two modernization sections in the article! Looks very strange.