Talk:2K12 Kub

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Command Guided?[edit]

I'm pretty sure it is command guided - every web source I can find says it is. A.R. can you provide a source that claims it isn't ? Megapixie 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked Janes (Janes land based air defence 2005-6) - and it also states that the missile is command guided (or at least receives mid course guidance correction). Megapixie 06:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding Russian term is zenith guided missile with a semi-active self-homing head (зенитная управляемая ракета с полуактивной головкой самонаведения). Semi-active does mean guidance correction. Guidance correction does mean command guidance. Still, this rocket may operate completely without in-flight guidance, but that would significantly decrease it's perfomance. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active head (so the missile with it does not need any form of in-flight guidance at all) was not available at that time. Developments of such missiles are underway only 'today'. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

In particular the 4x fracticides claim. A quick review of the sources doesn't bring anything up. Thanks Megapixie 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) The missile is command guided by the Continuous Wave radar underneath The Tracking Radar on the 1S91 radar. Although you can fire the missiles without radar guidance. The TEL can fire the missile in simple Ballistic trajectory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.28.237 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect designations.[edit]

There is no such thing as a 3M9 TEL. 3M9, 3M9M and 3M9M3 are missile designations. The TELs are designated 2P25. Frank D 16:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I´m deleting this:

"On 19 April 1974 a MiG-23MS flown by Maj. El al-Masry is said to have shot down 2 IAF F-4Es during a mission over the Golan Heights against an Israeli offensive to destroy Syrian SAMs. He was subsequently shot down by an AAM fired by the Israelis and apparently by a friendly SA-6 battery.<ref>http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_273.shtml</ref>"

No direct relation with SAM-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.127.194 (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no naval version?[edit]

Is there any indications as to why there was no shipboard version of the missile as there were for almost every other Soviet SAM system? For a time, it was believed (by NATO, at least) that the SA-N-3 was a derivative of the SA-6, but now that we know this not to be the case, what are the reasons why this rather formidable system was not navalized?--172.190.41.82 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still in use in Poland[edit]

The 2K12M version of Kub missile system is still operational in Poland. Planned to be replaced in "Narew" modernization program, but this to be concluded around 2018-2022. About 20 TELARs are in service in Polish Land Forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Polish_Land_Forces#Vehicles http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,2,4,8146,armie-swiata,wojsko-polskie,stan-realizacji-programu-obrony-powietrznej — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.151.131 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Kosovo[edit]

It is my opinion that the section about relative ineffectiveness in shooting down aircraft should be edited, since there are a wide variety of things that an IADS can do to be useful that are not shooting down aircraft. If a bomb-laden aircraft can be forced to jettison its load in the middle of nowhere, that is a success. Focusing overly much on shooting down aircraft does not paint a terribly accurate picture of how the role of the system in the campaigns and betrays a lack of expertise on the part of whoever wrote that sentence or two about how air defenses work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.135.218 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is what we have to go on from the sources. Adding information on virtual attrition would require the sources to discuss it or else it becomes WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers produced[edit]

The article states thate it is made in 10,000 examples. This cannot be true, simply put.

SIPRI (that i hope you may know) states straightly that countries OUTSIDE URSS received no less than 22,000 examples. Only the DDR had 6,500 missiles. And this not includes the soviet examples (surely several thousands more), so the production could have been something more than 30,000-40,000 units, roughly like the HAWK. After all, let's think about it: DDR, Poland, Hungary, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, India, only to say the major costumers. It's simply impossible that 10,000 could satisfy all of them, that expended thousands missiles in real wars, and still there were many more weapons in soviet army as well. Stef Menc (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even more nonsense is the number of launchers 'produced'. The article states in the box, '500 launchers', while even in recent years, the (incomplete) datas amount to more than 720 launchers!! This not include the soviet/russian, of course, and several other countries.

Only the DDR launchers were no less but 107, to make an example. So the DDR had more than 20% of the total SA-6 produced? While in 1986 soviet army was extimed to have more than 600 launchers itself.

So it's not only SIPRI, but WIKI itself that is contradicts its statements.Stef Menc (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided for the figures in the infobox is the website pvo.guns.ru which, although I am not certain, may possibly not meet Wikipedia's stringent requirements to be considered a reliable source.

In addition to the website possibly being unreliable, it is also possible that it has been misinterpreted. A Google Translate version of the cited URL says "During serial production of SAM family "Cube" from 1967 to 1983 it was released more than 500 air defense missile systems, tens of thousands of GOS. On tests and exercises performed more than 4,000 rocket launches". If this is accurate, then more than 500 launchers were produced just up to 1983, and tens of thousands (that is, implied at least 20,000) missiles. The section is also titled "SAM Cube in the Soviet Army", so these figures -- which may anyway not be reliable -- may also even exclude all of the versions built specifically for export, including hundreds of Cuban launchers and hundreds of Syrian launchers and thousands of missiles to go with them.

I have marked the infobox figures as "dubious" with a link pointing here.

If SIPRI is Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, then it is likely a more reliable source than pvo.guns.ru -- although it will have its own bias of course, and other sources like Jane's may be better still. Are you able to provide us with any information about where SIPRI has published information on this topic?

Thank you for raising this interesting issue. MPS1992 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me for the delay, yes i meant SIPRI: http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php following this link it's possible to extrapolate the amount of weapons that they have counted in any category. This doesn't mean that everything it's true and nothing else is reliable. As example, the amount of SA-6s sold to Egypt seems too low for a country that until today have dozen systems still in service despite the losses in the Y.Kippur war, while other trades are probably not really happened even if announced. But it's more likely that SIPRI don't know everything is happened and simply ignores many arms deliveries not publicized at all. As example, Forecast international counted about 150 MLR model FIROS 6/25/30 produced in all the models, but even if almost all of them were exported, Forecast and SIPRI counted only 48 of them, while other costumers simply are not confirmed or known for sure. It's not a wonder, anyway, as the arms trade is a grey area with many contracts simply not ufficialized for political or economical reasons. Just see Iran-contras scandal, as example.

ANYWAY, this is what SIPRI says about the SA-6 costumers:

Algeria: 10 SA-6 systems(600 missiles); Angola 7 SA-6 (400); Bulgaria 10 SA-6 (600); Cuba SA-6 (200); Czecoslovakia 10 SA-6 (600) DDR: 27 SA-6 (6,500) Egypt: 18 SA-6 (750) Hungary: 10 SA-6 (600) India: 25 SA-6 (1,500) Iraq: 20 SA-6 (1,200) Libya: 35 SA-6 (2,100) Poland: 25 SA-6 (1,500) Romania: 10 SA-6 (600) S.Yemen: 6 SA-6 (400) Syria: 50 SA-6 3,800) Tanzania: 3 SA-6 (200) Vietnam: 10 SA-6 (600) Yugoslavia: 17 SA-6 (1,000). 62.11.0.22 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS i agree that PVO site is referring basically to the sole SA-6 made for the soviet army. It's interesting that it records only '4,000 firings' but all of them in peace conditions, while we know that thousands of them were launched in several wars all around the globe. 62.11.0.22 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2K12 Kub. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123083209/http://milparade.udm.ru/27/126.htm to http://milparade.udm.ru/27/126.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]