[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:MIM-104 Patriot

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


Ukraine

[edit]

It's not final yet, but it looks like Ukraine will be getting Patriots. [1] 331dot (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait on addition until the plans themselves have been finalized and formally announced. While approval may be expected, the beginning of the article notes at least two ways this could be stopped, such as SecDef or POTUS not singing off on it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several Patriot systems have now been delivered to Ukraine, and have shot down Russian planes and missiles, including hypersonic missiles. Someone please get this into the article. Warren Dew (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check to see if it's already in the article? Because it's already in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 16 Events in Ukraine

[edit]

Posting this to remind myself or anyone who sees it in a few weeks. After current events cool down, I don't think we need a daily play-by-play for May 16, 17, 18. I think the whole event should be reduced to 2 or perhaps 3 sentences in length. And barring any pictures of destroyed launchers or radar stations that may surface in the coming days, the whole part where '5 launchers and a radar station were destroyed' shouldn't be included in the rewrite. Most (if not all) credible sources point towards it being a false claim. I.e., all sources that say it was destroyed, simply quote the Russian MOD, which is hardly good proof. Hiding an entire destroyed Patriot battery is pretty much next to impossible. But since the event is still current, I think it's worth including for now. Binglederry (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

[edit]

Request adding Mach speed to max speed row for the missiles in the missile specs table. Please substitute the current use of Template:Cvt with {{cvt|1190|m/sec|ft/sec Mach}}, which should render as 1,190 m/s (3,900 ft/s; Mach 3.5). 111.220.98.160 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 9th convoy strike allegedly contentions

[edit]

Someone reverted the forbes sourced paragraph describing a strike on a convoy because it's "contentious", why is it contentious?

The only part i personally find disagreable is claiming the strike was done by an iskander when Russia has numerous ballistic missiles with that range in use. Otherwise the claim that a patriot battery was struck seems fairly credible, the explosion looks fairly characteristic of rocket fuel exploding (look at many other videos of SAMs or SAM/ballistic missile storage blowing up in this conflict), and the aftermath footage shows that the convoy contained vehicles on a MAN truck chassis, with one of these trucks having a clearly visible rotation ring (which rules out IRIS-T since i think IRIS-T launchers have non rotating launch tubes like S-300, correct me if i am wrong) and also have outriggers which is further evidence of them being SAM elements and not mere cargo trucks or gun-trucks

The only thing that is kinda sus is the fact that in the thermal view pre-strike the back area of the trucks appeared to be shorter than the cabin, but that can be explained by some kind of video artefact or Ukraine using their launchers with 2 launch tubes instead of 4 due to missile rationing.

D1d2d3d29 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6/7 of the reliable sources I can find covering it decline to confirm the kill. Only Forbes unquestionably identifies it as a Patriot. The most reliable source, the ISW, states directly that the kill cannot be confirmed. ISW does say that it is possibly a MAN KAT1 truck, but declines to even confirm the model of the truck let alone whether its a TEL. I've seen unreliable sources claim it to be anything from a RM-70 Vampire TEL to a bridge layer to a frankensam.
This wouldn't be the first, second, or even third time a TEL kill has been misidentified and made the rounds on Twitter/Telegram.
We're dealing with bigfoot footage here in other words. Gotta wait until someone gets decent footage of the truck or the AFU confirms it.
Everything else in your post is original research on your part. 2601:647:6880:7070:2DC4:823:2F1C:34E9 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your statement that ISW is "the most reliable source", i myself consider them fairly unreliable, they are very biased and have made many controversial and weird statements in the past
It's definetly a MAN KAT1 truck, oryx blog appears to believe that judging by a convo on twitter i had with their main guy, and one of the trucks had a slewing ring which means it was either a TEL or a gun-truck, given the location and size of the convoy, and the fact that there was an ammunition detonation featuring rocket fuel so i think it having been a guntruck can be ruled out (and i doubt a gun truck could blow up that big in the first place) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it was highly unclear wheter or not it was a guntruck or a TEL, the current version of the paragraph is implying that it could be a normal cargo truck, which it can't be, it has a slewing ring
Oh yeah, and the debris possibly contains outriggers, you can argue that it could be an artefact of the footage or misidentification of some other component, but if true it definetly means that it was not a guntruck but a SAM battery component D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the version of the article i just undid said that there were 2 MAN trucks in the convoy, when there were in fact 3, one is just probably not a TEL so no one is mentioning it (it was probably transporting ammunition or something as part of the convoy. It has no remains of outriggers or rotation rings, i think some OSINT guys also said the cab shape indicates it's from a different MAN KAT1 version than the other 2 MAN trucks in the convoy but i am not confident about that specifically at all) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you never read the WP:NOR page? I don't edit here often enough to bother making an account, but even I know what you're doing is off limits. Find a published reliable source that identifies the truck and talks about the slewing ring, outriggers, or any sort of truck cab variants.
The ISW is considered a reliable source and they are cited in many other articles. They say directly that the truck is used for logistics as well as as a Patriot TEL, and also do not deign to confirm the model of the truck either.
"Russian sources amplified additional footage of the strike’s aftermath purportedly showing destroyed German MAN KAT1 trucks, which can be used as a base for Patriot air defense missile launchers."
"Ukrainian forces also use the MAN KAT1 trucks as logistics vehicles.[9] ISW has not yet observed evidence confirming that Russian forces destroyed a Patriot air defense system."
Pravda also mentions the MAN KAT1's use in logistics.
No other source talks about the trucks in any detail, possibly due to the poor quality of the footage. Whatever the twitterati talk about or your own research do not matter. They are not reliable sources. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these "twitterati" i was quoting were retweeted by oryx blog team members (which is a sign of approval), wikipedia considers oryx blog a reliable source. So no i wasn't quoting randos that didn't knew what they were talking about. Also the forbes article listed as a source in this article used one of those retweeted by oryx blog tweets as it's source, and that guys twitter thread goes into everything i said (the slewing ring, the outriggers, etc), so the forbes article used as a source on the strike here uses a source a twitter thread that backs up what i was saying.
Also i wasn't aware of ISW being considered a good source, in fact someone once told me here on wikipedia that it's being widely used only for a lack of alternatives (websites that track the war and do analytics day by day), can you explain why is it considered reliable D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did Oryx publish these tweets on his blog.
Can you find an alternative published reliable source talking about the truck model and concretely identifying it as a MAN KAT1? Can you disprove that it is a logistics vehicle with a published reliable source? The Forbes article says nothing about the truck itself mind you, and its an outlier in confirming the kill. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The forbes article uses as a source a twitter thread that supports the opinion that it was a PAC-2
Oryx didn't publish the tweets in his blog because the person that founded the website and used to tweet under it's official twitter account retired, they don't publish any tweets nowdays. BUT the person that took up his position and is currently the main person running the website does use twitter and he has recently retwitted a twitter thread on support the version that it was a PAC-2 convoy that featured at least 1 TEL
Also, i know that personal anecdotes are not sources but i feel like i should mention this anyway since it makes a few things on my personal opinion more clear: i actually talked with the before mentioned person that is now the leader of the oryx blog website, and they did have doubts about the claim that it was a PAC-2 battery, but not because they didn't think it was an air defense battery, but because they thought it could have been an IRIS-T battery, but given that a few hours ago they retwitted a tweet claiming that a credible Ukranian account on instagram posted an obituary for an Ukranian PAC-2 TEL crewmember they appear to have changed their mind D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is allowed to source twitter. Wikipedia is not (usually). 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But wikipedia is allowed to source forbes though? Also, i am repeating myself, but another threat by the same user as the one sourced by the forbes article was recently retwitted by the current oryx blog leader
Also, the edit i am against is the edit that those 2 MAN trucks could have been either TELs or cargo trucks. If something is unclear and vague then the paragraph should be kept short rather than going into MAN chassis discussions, not to mention that the convoy actually contained 3 MAN trucks and not 2, it's just that no one is discussing 1 of them because it was definetly not a TEL (i think you can see in the footage that it was actually shorter than the other 2 trucks and maybe had a different cabin?)
So either mention that the convoy contained 3 MAN trucks or don't mention it at all. Because the way it was it was wrong wheter you believe it was a PAC-2 TELs or mere cargo trucks (also i am repeating myself but one of those trucks had a slewing ring) D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the page is currently worded would make someone think that Russia just destroyed 2 western cargo trucks and claimed they must have been PAC-2 TELs because they were German trucks, which is not what is happening at all D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that is how sourcing works.
The wording was changed to "at least two" already, in line with what most articles stated about the number of trucks.
Please read WP:V 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the wording implies that the assumption that it was a TEL is based on nothing but it being a MAN KAT1 chassis, which is not the case at all, i think it would be better to keep it short and take out any speculation and theorising at all until some sources writes a more detailed analysis D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including that detail maintains neutral point of view. It is mentioned by two sources.
I feel like we're going in circles at this point. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costs seem off

[edit]

The cost of 1-2 billion per battery seems wrong. The source [2] cited to support this says it is lower: "Costs can also be inferred from recent foreign sales. Together these sources suggest that the cost of a single battery without missiles is about $400 million."

Please modify to be accurate and provide more sources. 212.87.194.36 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MIM-104_Patriot&oldid=1248977921"