Jump to content

Talk:9M133 Kornet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The spelling 'Cornet' appears in several articles on the Internet and should probably appear in both the article and 'Cornet' disabiguation. Also, is 'Kornet' the Russian/Slavic spelling for 'Cornet'? 89.0.216.89 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Roy[reply]

Right, 'Kornet' is 'Cornet' in russian. --Super.zhid 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added to Cornet (disambiguation). --Super.zhid 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article saying Hizbollah were using it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/15/wmid15.xml

Added to the refs by Riddley. --Super.zhid 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if telegraph says it has been used, we should accept newspaper's writings as true? Where is russians admitting it was used? Where is Israelis showing ANYONE those Kornets found? NOWHERE, so, please, do not rush to add Hizbollah to Kornet users, it was never proven to anyone. And regarding the supposed "evidence" on this page, that russians supposedly tightened control over foreign countrys users of equipment, it very well might be all about RPG-29, and not Kornet, we can not make a conclusive claim that it was about Kornet here, hence we can not claim that Kornet was used by Hezbollah. Also, new control law might be a preemptive measure. It has been rumored Kornet has ben used, not proven. So, unless wikipedia wants to be a place where rumors are being displayed as truth without evidence, then sure, let's add back that Hezbollah has been using Kornet.

What's with that Hezbollah paragraph? It's like some kid wrote that. There's double negations, a lot of maybe, probably, perhaps, etc... It should just be one sentence. It is unclear wether or not it was used. All the mambo-jambo about tanks disabled but not destroyed and the israelis going to moscow is superfluos chatter.190.50.213.208 (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by IP addresses

[edit]

The page has been vandalized on a daily basis by different IP addresses. I've added a request for semi-protection. --Super.zhid 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kornet has NOT been proven to be in Hezbollah and Israel conflict, why does the page say it was? It was NEVER proven by Israel. RPG-29 Vampire, yes, but Kornet, never.

Despite the claims by the russian goverment , It has been proven that kornets were used in the Israel-Hizbollah conflict in 2006 .You can even find in the web pictures taken by soldiers in the war showing Kornet boxes that were found in Lebanon , for instance just a short googling found me this page : http://picasaweb.google.com/anerster/aezEDI/photo#5123415310257151778 .
This is a photo album taken by an independent soldier , you can clearly see the 9M133-1K writing on the box , The hebrew writing underneath says " שלל : גדוד 931 " that means " Booty : regiment 931" , regiment 931 is part of the compulsory division "Nahal".
I've seen some more pictures in the past , and heard personal testimonies of soldiers that've seen the boxes. 84.108.98.100 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez the terrorist must be amazing if they have the capability of taking down 21st century tanks with wooden boxes. Maybe soon they will upgrade to steel boxes. I've cached the page with the picture as well as the picture itself in case the magical unicorn 48kg English writing Kornet in the box decides to slim down to the real world 27kg with Russian writing. Really thin veneer here folks, it'll fool some CNN idiot but not anyone who knows what he is looking for. (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, crate markings state that gross weight is 48 kg, but net weight listed as 29.5 kg. Also, tare markings (right of the top crate) look somewhat legit (as per Soviet State Standard GOST 26319-84 (enacted in 1986, amended in 1993 and 2004, still current)). 4C2/X48/5/03: “4C2” means “solid wooden crate”, “X48” means “group I (most dangerous cargo) tare with maximum allowed gross weight of 48 kg”, “5” supposed to be “S” (designation for which I had found no explanation), but that could be explained that factory did not have the stencil for Latin glyph and used next best thing, “03” stands for year of production (of the crate). Second line (RU GOST 26319-84) I am not too sure about. According to Addendum 2 to said standard which lists requirements and examples of marking that line should look like “RU GOST 26319/ABC” where “ABC” represents “original manufacturer” (whatever that means). So technically that line is incorrect, but I might be reading too much into that.
In all, however, while I would understand desire of Russian AF to test ATGRs in combat conditions, some photo of some crates by some grunt is not enough to make assumptions. theUg (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Granovsky says Kornet was there. For me, waronline.org is solid enough. --Super.zhid (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wooden Boxes aren't solid proof. Israel need to capture real life Kornet or a color video of Hebollah fighter carrying it. Yes, the writing say's it's Russians, the Tare marking seem's legit, But for country like Israel who developed some of the most advance weapons in the world, a simple stenciled wooden box aren't really beyond their technical capability. I admit, maybe, i say MAYBE, Hezbollah did used Kornet, but Wooden boxes aren't going to prove anything, unless if you put a gun on everyones head and force them to believe it. 60.48.73.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Our own analysis is irrelevant. Photos, videos, boxes, launchers - we are simply not competent enough to conclude anything of an encyclopedic value. What is relevant is what the experts are saying. Please take a look on the identifying reliable sources guideline. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of Hezbollah, implicitly admitted having Kornet missiles in one of his speeches. The video of the speech I'm referring to can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hRwn3kJ_xE Nasrallah makes the implicit admission at around minute 26 of the video. He is saying roughly that if he is going to accept the decision that the government of Lebanon took of dismantling the Hezbollah telecom network, this step would be soon followed by others that would target its military capabilities, anti-tank weapons, and the Kornet. The word Kornet can be recognized even by those who don't speak Arabic (26:02-26:04) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.52 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is to make sure that the claims are attributed to the expert or organizations that are making the claim and also any refutations and who made them and cite them accordingly. Wikipedia isn't making the claim and neither are any of us. That keeps it neutral, we are just reporting the claims and counter claims and that is the end of it.Tirronan (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah removal from Operators section by anonymous user

[edit]

Anonymous user User:211.187.89.102 has removed Hezbollah from Operators section twice ([1], [2]) in the last day. Unless this edit is explained, I'm going to revert is as vandalism. Also notifying the user on his talk page. --Super.zhid (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAMAS added as user of Kornet rocket unsubstantiated

[edit]

The addition of HAMAS to the list of those in possession of the rocket is unjustified as it is unproven. Even the article linked to justify it states that it was believed to have been used by "Army of Islam" and not HAMAS. As a result, the mention of HAMAS should be removed. For this reason, I have removed mention of HAMAS in the list pending submission of some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.223.193 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combat with a school bus?

[edit]

I am wondering whether the shooting at a school bus really belongs under 'Combat history'. Maybe we should create a new section, like 'Terrorist attacks' or something? Any thoughts here? Bazuz (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Flayer (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hizbollah3.tif Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Hizbollah3.tif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hezbollah flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Hezbollah flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remove the terrorist attack section

[edit]

its pointless every weapon is cable of killing civilians its unhonest and has nothing to with combat history, should for every Israeli drone and phosphor bomb added a section how they killed Palestinian children???--Alibaba445 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of picture and "In attacks against civilians" title

[edit]

I removed the picture because it is not relevant to the article. Weapon articles on wikipedia don't normally show pictures of wounded people. For example the AGM-114 Hellfire article doesn't show pictures of dead Palestinian children.

Also I removed the text "In attacks against civilians" because whether civilians were deliberately targeted in the attack is disputed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/09/palestinians-israel-hamas-idUSLDE73807X20110409 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojoc (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are "disputed", but they still belong to Wikipedia. Flayer (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct The Mistake!!! Kornet Is Not a Second But a Thrid Generation System!!!

[edit]

As I said, Korent is a thrid generation anti-tank system. Please correct this innacurate statement.

Correct The Mistake!!! Kornet Is Not a Second But a Thrid Generation System!!!

[edit]

As I said, Korent is a thrid generation anti-tank system. Please correct this innacurate statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there are not accepted standard or general consensus of anti-tank system generations what-so-ever, any reference to generations are inaccurate by default and thus should be removed. /BP 81.225.216.15 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Price per unit

[edit]

The price per unit repeatedly added by 84.52.101.196, $2,200, is totally unrealistic and should be reverted to what it previously said, $875,000 per system (with one launcher and ten missiles per system). Having a reference (SIPRI) that says that Eritrea bought 80 Kornets for $170,000 in 2005 does not outweigh the fact that common sense says it's not a realistic price (and WP:RS expressly says that common sense is indispensable when evaluating sources...), and must be part of a military aid deal or something. Thomas.W (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the ref you are adding:
1. Is it's not verifiable. It's to some offline newspaper.
2. What I've got from googling the deal with Turkey, is that there were training, training equipment, launchers and missiles. So it's quite a complex deal from which it is hard to deduce the price of the missile itself.
About "common sense": The missile has 2 photodiodes connected to a simple command decoder (basically like in your IR TV remote receiver). To simplify it even further, the fixed fins cause the missile to spin in flight and a single moving control surface, which moves only in one direction, adjust its course during this rotation. It's even simpler than the previous generation 9K113 Konkurs and 9K111 Fagot missiles which had gyroscopes on board. I can hardly imagine why such a trivial mechanism would cost like a 4 good cars. And being even more expensive than the Javelin missile, which has cryogenic cooled thermal imaging camera on board with a complex image processing electronics. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the cost per unit from the infobox since $2,200 per unit is totally unrealistic and the source for $875,000 per launcher plus ten missiles can't easily be reached. But it should be pointed out that SIPRI's Trade Register (the same source that was given for $2,200 per missile) lists the price per launcher plus ten missiles as $750,000-1,250,000 (a total price of $60-100M for 80 launchers and 800 missiles; click here then do a search for supplier Russia, recipient Turkey, years 2007-2012 and all types), for the exact same deal with Turkey in 2008 that Defense News lists as $875,000 per launcher plus ten missiles. Which verifies the higher price. But it is IMHO better to include no price at all in the infobox than to give a price that, as with all arms deals nowadays, with all probability includes a lot more than just the launchers and missiles. Thomas.W (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone with engineering education, it doesn't look totally unrealistic. It should cost order of magnitude lower than the Javelin. So the number is roughly correct. But i'd agree that trying to derive it from some obscure deals is not a good idea. Let's leave it without the price. 84.52.101.196 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.121.27 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20081017095835/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M1 tank in Iraq

[edit]

http://i.imgur.com/a7QAc9r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YZ89YJU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/glr9lO8.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Yf4cmGL.jpg frontal arc was penetrated and the tank was destroyed entirely. Burned wrack http://i.imgur.com/CfAP71Q.jpg afterwards (notice the hit was in the frontal arc the tank burned entirely) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.242.72.131 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 9M133 Kornet. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 9M133 Kornet. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. But please be careful in removing sourced material. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cant read refs

[edit]

Foreign language SaintAviator lets talk 03:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use google translate. I cant read Arabic but I don't remove untranslatable stuff. I AGF as to the original editor. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 9M133 Kornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 9M133 Kornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 9M133 Kornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9M133_Kornet&oldid=1197116463"