Talk:PT-76

message: Our article says "Plavayushchy Tank (Плавающий Танк)", but I have a published source that says Plavuchii Tank.  Any idea which is correct, or if it even matters?  —Michael Z. 2005-10-21 17:09 Z
"Плавающий" literally means "one that swims" (i.e. has one role and that is swimming), whereas "плавучий" is more like "amphibious". Hence logically, it would seem that the tank was called the latter but I have no certain information about this --72.137.194.104 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plavayushchy or Plavuchii 

message: According to this the clash at Ben Het took place on 3 March 1970, not 3 March 1969. Meanwhile the WikiCommons image of the destroyed tank gives the year as 1968. Which of these is correct? Drutt (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer examination, both the 1969 and 1970 dates are stated by this source, so I'll assume the 1970 date is a misprint. Drutt (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Het 

message: I have just spent most of a weekend editing this article down from a massive 56000 bytes to a more managable (and comprehensible) 48000, a lot more could be trimmed I'm sure, but I'm not the one to do it; what is the optimal article length? 
There are still some things that I don't understand. For instance, there are over 60 template and 9 category entries on the edit page. but I can't get at them. Don't they need editing as well? If so, how? RASAM (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: Hello, the data table says approximately 12,000 vehicles were built, but the service history mentions 5,000 with 2,000 being exported; is it possible to clarify the correct number please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.42.131 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number built. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on PT-76. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070325014928/http://members.aol.com:80/panzersgt/Threat/pt76.html to http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/Threat/pt76.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This source, which itself cites Islamic Republican newspaper, 10/3/90 (Solar Hejri calender), mentions "one GSP bridge company" participating in Operation Beit-ol-Moqaddas. It is apparently refering to the Zafar Company, 414th Combat Engineer Battalion of Ground Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran Army which participated in the operation. --Z 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: The section states "When not in use the trim vane is stowed in the front of the bow over the barrel of the main gun and serves as additional armor." It's talking about a slab of metal that assists in planing, called the 'bow flap' in the failed Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Even without looking at pictures of the PT-76, one has to think 'how in the hell would it fold over the barrel of the main gun?' Then looking at images of the tank it looks like it just folds about 10" over the lip of the upper glacis plate. 
I'm almost positive that's not right, but since I don't know anything about this particular tank I figured I would just mention it here. Some Soviet amor expert take it from here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLongSidekick (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with vane design description in 'Water Mobility' subsection 

message: "There are also additional assistant water-jet inlets on both sides of the hull over the last road wheels."
From the following description of how the system works, those would appear to be the reverse flow outlets that let the vehicle reverse and take over the water flow when the main outlets are closed. I see no other openings our ports that look like they would work for that, and from the photograph of the swimming PT-76s, they are far too high above the water to function as inlets anyway. Maybe the editor just wasn't aware that "inlet" specifically means an opening for the entry of a fluid, rather than a general term for any port.
Although are we sure that those are actually swimming tanks in that photo? I didn't expect it to float anywhere near that high in the water. I thought they were just fording in that photograph. As far as I can tell that leaves more that half of the volume of the hull above water level, which is usual for an armored amphibious vehicle. I guess those hollow road wheels really help a lot.  Idumea47b (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water "inlets" on hull