Talk:OTR-21 Tochka

[unnamed old discussion that lacks a title and breaks page formatting]

So the only recorded use of this missile in combat ended up with it blowing up a maternity ward? Ouch. The team that designed this must have trouble sleeping. -Toptomcat 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a late reply, but still... The "sole" use that it mentiones appears to be copied directly from fas.org/GlobalSecurity, which in turn sources an article called "Missile Terror" by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough. And, first of all, even they claim that there were a lot more combat launces (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18125) but also their articles seem like short propaganda pamphlets which are not sourced at all, and are written in a highly biased and emotional tone so I'd take them with a grain of salt. Maxim K 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage by Ukraine in Donbass

As per a well-substantiated source providing documentary evidence, Ukraine used some 40+ missiles in its war in Donbass against the rebels. Each usage is backed up with photographic evidence in the source in question; and the site used as the source is widely on the wiki. What would be the reasons to remove the facts from the article, when so much evidence backs them up? Danvolodar2 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons to remove lostarmour.info link and data. My suggestion would be to weed out lostarmour.info links from wikipedia completely.

1. The resource is clearly ideologically engaged in the conflict and holds an anti-ukrainian position. To quote a passage from the link:

"I'm not going to lie, if I'd say that efficiency (of the Tochka launches) is not just close but equals to zero. There's zero damage done even to the civilian buildings (which Armed Forces of Ukraine is best at)"

"Думаю, не слукавлю, если скажу, что она даже не стремиться, а просто-напросто РАВНА нулю. В молоко запустили, как говорятся. Никакого ущерба не нанесено, даже по домам гражданских не попали (что ВСУ умеет делать лучше всего), а с точки зрения пропаганды, польза явно отрицательная."

2. Data collected and analysed by one person working for lostarmour.info and not collaborated elsewhere.

3. Conclusions about efficiency are heavily criticised even in the comment section on the lostarmour.info

As such statement on the efficiency: "only two of the latter achieving hits on military targets" should be removed without questions. Statement on the quantity and substance of the Tochkas: "no less than 43 missiles were launched, with both fragmentation and cluster warheads" is doubtful and also should be removed. Grayraw (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

New topics go at the bottom, not the top. You did the same on my talk page. Please stop doing that as it makes finding things a pain.

This topic has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313. The consensus was that it's not a reliable source.Kylesenior (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

LostArmour.info is not WP:RS. I've removed all material "sourced" there. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is irrelevant what opinion the author of the piece holds on the combat capabilities of the Ukrainian army or the efficiency of the missile hits, as long as we're using his work to back up the claim that the missiles were used, to begin with - which he has backed with solid factual evidence. Yes, the evidence is apparently OSINT-sourced, but dozens of photos and videos of launchers in the region, missile wrecks, and hit locations aren't any less real for that. Or if you believe that OSINT data is inherently unreliable, especially when presented by observers you consider partisan, that should be used as a consistent policy, and then all OSINT-sourced claims removed from the wiki - including, say, the many cases of Bellingcat data used as evidence. Danvolodar2 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: If you consider my placement of new topics on talk pages wrong, feel free to move them, what's the big deal.

@Danvolodar2 Facts, even well sourced ones, that don’t echo prevailing western political narratives are very difficult to get into Wikipedia articles. English Wikipedia is designed to make it almost impossible to present facts that are ignored or downplayed by prominent western media outlets like BBC, Fox News, Sky, NYT, The Guardian etc. The concept of NPV is a joke when only publications that present one side of contentious issues are considered reliable sources and when a small number of dedicated editors can camp out in and control articles and their factual content. Good luck fighting this inertia. User2346 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you haven't even bothered to look at WP:reliable sources when you mention Fox News as credible.Kylesenior (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure Fox News was at one point considered a reliable source. But even if it wasn’t, my point that the structure of Wikipedia means articles concerning politics will be heavily biased towards the western perspective still stands. User2346 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to present different interpretations of the facts, but does not not favor obvious lies about what those facts are. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:18B2:A75:3A38:60E3 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Yield of the AA-60 nuclear warhead?

Does anyone know what yield (in kT) did/does the AA-60 nuclear warhead have? I suppose, it is scalable, from 10 - 20 - 50 kT, right? Thanks.--84.163.93.174 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, missilethreat.com states the nuclear warhead as having a selectable yield between 10 and 100 kT.--84.163.93.174 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and NATO reporting name

It seems to me that the NATO reporting name should appear not only in the main body of the article, but in the Infobox as well. That would make the infobox a sort of quick reference card for the SAM system.

Carrying this to the logical extension, should the Russian/Soviet reporting names be included in the infobox for the relative NATO systems? Just a thought...

WeeWillieWiki (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I don't think it would be a good idea to add more text to this navbox

What you could do is help improving this one

Thanks --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 11:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully confirmed use in the Donbass

There is nothing "unconfirmed" at all about use of the Tochka-U in the war in the Donbass. Its use has been confirmed by the Ukrainian side. http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/10/ukraine-destroys-terrorussian-base-with.html 75.111.20.66 (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Cluster weapon?

News today states that a Tochka was a cluster weapon. Is this correct? If so, it should be in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

Is there any source for given accuracy of 150m? I have seen a diagram which suggests an accuracy of 20m in NVA tests, which seems to fit more with the high accuracy suggested by the missiles name. The source for the diagram is supposedly the (german) book "Die Raketentruppen der NVA", Roland Großer. 89.246.96.52 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A name means nothing.

150m CEP is what Nato's equivalent system Lance had, and Nato was generally more technologically advanced. Both weapons were deployed around the same time and had similar ranges. There is also little point having greater accuracy than that in a nuclear weapon system. Higher levels of accuracy only matter if you are using very small yields against hardened targets (i.e. Pershing II).Kylesenior (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Map of operators/former operators is misleading

Russia, according to the article, is a current operator of this missile system yet on the map its territory is coloured red (former operator). It should be coloured blue (current operator).

Maybe the map is supposed to indicate the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, was a former operator but anyone who looks at it will incorrectly assume The Russian Federation no longer uses this missile.

That’s very sloppy but not unusual given Wikipedia’s uneven QC. User2346 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A report claiming that the Tochka-U is back in service with Russian armed forces as of March 2022 - https://defence-blog.com/russian-tochka-u-ballistic-missiles-return-to-service-amid-ukraine-war/ Jolyonralph (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a fake. Moderators, please remove it.

Tochka-U missiles not in service in Russian Armed Forces. It's a legacy Soviet Union missile.

[1]https://tass.com/politics/1423317

Tochka-U tactical missiles are not in service in Russian Armed Forces, Russian mission to the UN said in its letter to the UN Security Council and General Assembly.

It's a bad source from dependent and unknown reporter. The photo was done in Belarus. Belarus is using Tochka-U but Russia isn't. Where are numbers ? What about facts that this is Russian missiles ? 178.44.240.251 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

On 24 April 2022, a Tochka missile hit an Orsk -> On March 24, 2022 FuzzyCat (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done [2] Thanks Ericoides. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Russians deny they have these, now

But they still have old stock. If they try to deny they have these, or are using them now, the official statement should be noted and sourced, and links provided to videos showing otherwise. More than that, wiki can not do without being partisan.2A00:23C7:E287:1900:18B2:A75:3A38:60E3 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

About this: During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia returned Tochka-U launchers to service, although this claim was disputed and denied by the Russian army

It's a fake. Moderators, please remove it. Tochka-U missiles not in service in Russian Armed Forces. It's a legacy Soviet Union missile. [1]https://tass.com/politics/1423317

Tochka-U tactical missiles are not in service in Russian Armed Forces, Russian mission to the UN said in its letter to the UN Security Council and General Assembly. It's a bad source from dependent and unknown reporter. The photo was done in Belarus. Belarus is using Tochka-U but Russia isn't. ISoftMetall (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/russian-military-commits-indiscriminate-attacks-during-the-invasion-of-ukraine/

Russian denial did not come until 3 weeks after the February 24 Tochka missile strike by Russia on a Ukrainian hospital in Donetsk Oblast. 172.58.206.205 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 (2)

The article does not mention the possible cluster warhead payload configurations. Whereas the picture of the warhead in the article shows the internals of the cluster munitions.

There are also multiple reports of this missile used in Ukraine with cluster warhead causing massive civilian casualties. 73.97.53.133 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The text "At first, Russian media said it had hit a Ukrainian military target." is unsourced. It should be "At first, Russian media said it had hit a Ukrainian military target.". 94.62.96.100 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Zippybonzo | talk 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Providing information without evidence, inserting opinion, and using irrelevant sources.

Section on April 8th attack talks about "At first, Russian media said it had hit a Ukrainian military target" which is supported only by source no. 35 which themselves provide no evidence of Russian media speaking about it in this manner.

Further an opinion is inserted in claiming Russia falsely blamed Ukraine for the strike which does not appear in source no. 35 as it's apparent it is the main source of the whole paragraph.

Source no. 38 is completely irrelevant to the information, as it speaks of situation between 2nd and 7th of April, and there isn't a single mention of the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.95.200.150 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please remove or add relevant source to the claim of Russian media claiming attack on Ukrainian military, remove word falsely from report on Kremlin's response, and remove source [38]https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-invasion-update-22 altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.95.200.150 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't know which side fired the missile; it could be months or years from before military historians come to a consensus. Until then, we should present both side's claims along with the proven facts on the ground. There shouldn't be this rush to uncritically repeat Western propaganada. 204.111.131.82 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Proven facts are alreay there, the problem is that they are obscured and silenced by propaganda and people with agendas. There is the serial number of the missile, which indicates 100% coming from Ukr stock. There is the methodical and in-detail analysis of missile trajectory and location of launch with maps and data that indicates if came from Ukrainian controlled territory. There is the fact that Russia claims they don't use Tochka-U and that all Tochka-U launched so far have been done by Ukraine. There is the fact that Ukr officials first claimed it was a Iskander and when they realized there was photo evidence of the missile they said...uhh...it's a Tochka-U... but it's Russian! There is the fact that all video evidence of launcher vehicles claiming to be Russian were in fact Belarussian during exercises in Feb 2022. There is the fact that in those videos of BAZ vehicles with 'V' markings you can't possibly identify them as Tochka-U launchers with missiles inside because BAZ is a multipurpose platform and a radar BAZ vehicle is completely indistinguishable from a launcher in travel mode. And finally there is the fact that many people debunking and exposing the facts of this horrendous crime have been silenced and their twitter accounts suspended, like Scott Ritter. It's a massive Occam's razor wether you like it or not. 2.143.229.59 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

LostArmour is not WP:RS. Do you have a WP:RS to back up any of your claims? And understandingwar is WP:RS per WP:USEBYOTHERS. I will add that I am aware that plenty of Russians sincerely believe that the illusions spun by the Kremlin are fact. Therefore, there is every reason to assume that the IP users above are sincere. One way to figure out who is lying and who is not is to ask oneself whether or not this is in fact a "war". Why has the Kremlin banned the word? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot, and much less a propagandized zombie, so you can spare your WP rethorics with me. You want proof? There is a shitload of proof. You want one demolishing proof right now that could'nt possibly be argued against? Italian tv channel La7, absolutely not a Kremlin propaganda channel, showed in crystal clear video quality the serial number of the missile and it has been tracked back to its owner and other missiles in the same number range that have been fired in past days. Smoking gun in the hands of the culprit. You are denying reality for your own agenda, so provide proof yourself instead of claims by interested parties and stop treating readers like fools. 2.143.229.59 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. In your opinion, did Russia invade Ukraine on Feb. 28? Did Russia start a war with Ukraine? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's going more than just past the line. I propose you stop now and stick to the topic, instead of making this personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"We don't know which side fired the missile"

For anyone who actually bothered to check, yes we do. And it's been obvious ever since just a few days after the impact.

The missile dug an impact trench in the ground, pointing blatantly towards Ukraine held territory.

The serial number was spread through photos. Traced back to a delivery to Ukraine by 3rd party.

Russia replaced these with newer weapon systems YEARS ago. DPR and LPR has small numbers of them taken from Ukraine and given from Russia when they cleared out their inventory, Russia does not(they specifically used up the last of their stock as target practice for SAM units).

It is an absolute DISGRACE that this page outright LIES like this. This is NOT a matter of point of view or anything even slightly uncertain, THIS IS PROVEN beyond any doubt.

And the overall language used is embarassingly biased. We KNOW that Ukraine has lied absurdly much, yet the wikipedia page treats Ukraine claims as hard truth and calls Russian statements "blames" and "falsely blamed" and "claimed".

Wikipedia is now officially and unquestionably a propaganda outlet. Well done! DW75 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Consider reports from Digital Fprensic Research Lab biased

I was surprised to see that wikipedia so hastedly was able to conclude definitively that Ukraine had not launched missiles on the 8th of April 2022, hitting the railway station in Kramatorsk, as Russia had claimed. So I looked through the source. This assertion is based on the findings of the "Digital Forensic Research Lab" (DFRL), a company that is good at finding "disinformation" from China (apparently, that's all they do). They may be doing that very well, but it does raise a few problems.

1. DFRL is really just the Atlantic Council, an American think-tank. The US is hardly neutral in this and anything that hurts Russia is certainly something the US would be glad to see. This alone means any reports from DFRL should not just be considered golden. Care should be taken before anything is admitted as gospel. 2. DFRL has no proven record for dealing with war zones. At least none that I could find. 3. DFRL seems to not have existed before 2020.

I propose the following is changed:

On 8 April 2022, the railway station in Kramatorsk under Ukrainian control was hit by 2 Tochka-U ballistic missiles. The attack killed at least 52 civilians and injured at least 87 more. At first, Russian media said it had hit a Ukrainian military target. Later, Russia falsely blamed Ukraine for the strike.[34] The message in Russian "Za detei", meaning for or on behalf of the children, had been daubed on the missile in white.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

to

Among the donors of the Atlantic Council: Burisma Holdings, what a surprise. Kiidding apart, the Atlantic Council is by no means a reliable and neutral source. It's a pro-NATO US think tank....with Ukrainian donors. This article was turned upside down by pro-Ukrainian supporters after the the massacre of Kramatorsk. It's a propaganda war, on both sides. Wikipedia should wait and avoid childish editions. Time shall tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

On 8 April 2022, the railway station in Kramatorsk under Ukrainian control was hit by 2 Tochka-U ballistic missiles. The attack killed at least 52 civilians and injured at least 87 more. After having claimed to have hit a military target, Russian media, blamed Ukraine for the strike. The message in Russian "Za detei", meaning for or on behalf of the children, had been daubed on the missile in white.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

The DFRL source also doesn't seem to support the claim that Russian media blamed Ukraine, simply stating it is not enough. A direct link to an actual Russian media making the claim would be the proper thing to insert. There's also the problem of actually identifying _which_ Russian media gave the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry if I'm doing this wrong - I very rarely edit! :) I agree that the Atlantic Council is hardly an unbiased source. Also, the sentence "Later, Russia falsely blamed Ukraine for the strike.[34]" is misleading: the referenced Atlantic Council article does not provide the kind of information or detail required to make a true/false claim. Timothym (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Uses of a lot of un trusted references

Uses of a lot of un trusted references , from Iranian fake news networks , especially from 17 to 25 , a lot related to fake news . Abughamd (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)