Talk:9K121 Vikhr

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Design designation

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Bias

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

Whilst others may take it as a criticism of Russian technology! It is a fair comment. Acorn897 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply