Talk:Tor missile system

message: this name (torus) continues the line of "geometry" names of SA systems: Kub (Cube), Kvadrat (Square), Krug (Round). --jno 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: IISS Military Balance 2007 stated 48 units of Tor Missile System in Myanmar/Burma's order of battle.  However, User:85.75.82.99 claim that his "friends" in Russian MOD has confirmed that is not to be true, but he has not provided any verifiable proof that this supposed confirmation from Russian MOD.  Please do not make up stories to support your claim.  IISS Military Balance is a prominent publication and their information are based upon Weapon transfer registered with United Nations.  Okkar 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operator: Myanmar 

message: "Libya has decided to buy the Tor-M1. 20 Launchers to be ordered soon."  Reference please. Bogdan 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libya 

message: Deleted Syria from the list of operators, while referanced all accounts of Syrias use of TOR seem to originate from an Aviation Week article that miss-identified a recent shipment of PANTSIR for TOR.--Typhoon9410 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria 

message: "Each 9K331 vehicle is a completely autonomous transporter, launcher, and radar unit TLAR (smilar but not a TLAR) as it cannot move the missile) although it can be linked into a wider air defense system." This statement from the "Description" section needs to be clarified by someone who knows what a TLAR is. I don't, but there's obviously something wrong with this statement and the semi-compound parenthetical note. Oneforlogic (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected TLAR to TELAR.Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: "E" stands for Erector, which Tor is not. TLAR is OK. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TLAR 

message: Source that shows that georgia has Tor SAM is a YouTube video that contains russian generals speculations that georgia might have Tor systems.
Other sources, including russian ones, indicate that that Georgian used Buk-M1 to shot Ty22M. 
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw081808p2.xml&headline=Georgian%20Military%20Folds%20Under%20Russian%20Attack
Also, fact that Ty-22M was used for reconnaissance is desputed. Somw sources indicate that plain was used to bomb targets in georgia.
:The combat history for this article was written during the conflict and does need an update, the interview is a good source for speculation around Tor in Georgia, but you are correct in that the source does not demonstrate its existance. Tor does not show up in any arms database either so I have changed the status to unconfirmed. As for the use of the Tu-22M, recon was the stated purpose of the aircraft in the interview at the time of its destruction. "so we needed aircraft recon, this is why we used this type of aircraft"Typhoon9410 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia 

message: Someone repeatedly writes "Soviet Union" in the table field for "Place of origin". The SU seized to exist in 1991, and the field is not called "originally developed in" or something like this. Please comment - or stop changing it from "Russia". --Bernd vdB (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an interesting debate as to what "Place of origin" should stand for, the SU or Russia. The field does not specify any time point, be it current or original so both are technically valid. Personally I would prefer to use SU as it was first place chronologically and I feel it fits better the definition of origin "the place where something begins" and Tor began in the SU. Additionally if Russia is used then it gives the impression the system was developed post-1991, like for example Pantsyr which is false. Anyone else?Typhoon9410 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Place" in my understanding refers to a physical coordinate more than to a time coordinate, but english is not my mother language, so correct me if I'm wrong. BTW the text says precisely where and when the different developement steps took place. The systems that are in use now are definitely russian. --Bernd vdB (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed and I would consider the Tor-M2 and Tor-M1-1 to be "Russian" Tor, but the place of origin for the Tor-M1 and Tor was the Soviet Union, as first in the order I would put SU as place of origin. I think it is more correct to use the original location even if it doesnt technically exist today, your origin does not change with time. For example someone would say "I was born in the Soviet Union" it would be less correct to say "I was born in the Russian Federation" because the Russian federation did not exist when the person was born.Typhoon9410 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the whole group of systems, and none of those are unchanged from soviet time. Would you also mark a car with this background as "place of origin: Soviet Union"? Strange. --Bernd vdB (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if we had a all-encompassing article on a series of cars that were initially designed and manufactured within the Soviet Union then its origin would be the Soviet Union. It is no coincidence on en.wikipedia I think, that all pre-1991 Russian weapons carry the SU as their place of origin.Typhoon9410 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so then you should consequently add this kind of wisdom to articles like Lada Niva - where the soviet origin is not mentioned with one word. Otherwise people might forget the importance of history ... --Bernd vdB (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, had I any interest in the article I would edit it accordingly, though the automobile infobox appears to neglect an origin heading anyway. Do we have a consensus on the nature of "place of origin"?Typhoon9410 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I was just mentioning "Lada Niva" in order to illustrate how far fetched the argument is. --Bernd vdB (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place: Soviet Union? 

message: I can't figure out where the missiles are in the vehicle: do they launch from the slanted panels on the edges, or are they concentrated in the center? The panels look like doors, but it doesn't seem like there's enough space under them to fit a 10ft missile vertically. Are they laid out in a line, with two 4-missile boxes edge-to-edge, or are they clustered side by side in two rows of four? And where do the crew sit? It looks like it must be very cramped. Are they all located in the front of the hull?
Also, why does the whole top turn? I thought it was a fixed unit until I saw the photo of the wheeled unit on the bottom. It's a vertical launch system, so why does it need to turn to face the target? I know the radar needs to face the target, but they could just mount the radar on its own pivot and make the missile launcher stationary in the chassis. Seems like it'd be a lot simpler. Are the missiles designed to only turn in one direction when they are fired, to make them simpler, so they have to be properly oriented in the right general direction before they are ejected from the launcher? I know naval missiles can turn in any direction after launch...or I assume they can...but that makes them a little more complex. I guess the question is is it better to make the missile more complex or the launcher more complex? AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: The image with the description of "SA-N-9 firing from the Kirov class cruiser Frunze." is actually showing the PK-2 decoy launcher launching flares.
http://militaryhistory.x10.mx/shippictures/kirov%20class/kirov%2001.jpg
13 - ПУСКОВЫЕ УСТАНОВКИ ВЫСТРЕЛИВАЕМИХ ПОМЕХ = decoy launcher
You can clearly see the bow of the Frunze here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kirov-class_battlecruiser.jpg
The SA-N-9 was never installed on it (they were only installed on Pyotr Velikiy and only on its stern) - the bow SA-N-9 launchers would go on these two large square panels. You can see from the incorrect photo that the launch is taking place just behind the RBU launcher and this is the structure housing the decoys.
So, the image needs to be removed from the Tor wiki page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijozic (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect image linked to Tor system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Tor missile system. 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/20080916130818/http://www.almaz-antey.ru/hystory.php to http://www.almaz-antey.ru/hystory.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312163337/http://www.raspletin.ru/sistema-pvo-maloy-dalnosti-tor-m2e to http://www.raspletin.ru/sistema-pvo-maloy-dalnosti-tor-m2e
*Added  tag to http://www.kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2e/TOR_M2E_rus_2013.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102231457/http://www.kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2k/TOR_M2K_rus_2013.pdf to http://www.kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2k/TOR_M2K_rus_2013.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003234507/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/602540.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/602540.html
*Added  tag to http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2266
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://armyreco.ifrance.com/amerique_du_sud/perou/perou_index_materiel.htm
*Added  tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2006953.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207151313/http://www.kupol.ru/en to http://www.kupol.ru/en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following statement "Unlike the Tor system, the HQ-17 incorporates an IFF array on top of an electronically scanned array radar, modernized electronics, a new all-terrain launcher, and the ability to datalink with other china systems" is highly misleading. Chances are the editor that put the information paraphrased it wrongly. Both Russian and Chinese Tor system have the same antenna configuration albeit conforming to different military standards. It reads much better if the "unlike" is changed to "like", to reflect the superficial similarity between the two. Or if we want to reflect the source properly, the statement should be changed into, "In comparison to Tor system, HQ-17 is similar in form and function except that it uses Chinese custom electronics...." or something close to it. We can see HQ-17 isn't that different from the outside compared to Russian Tor, on the same source cited for the misleading statement. The current statement implied the original version do not have an IFF antenna and electronically scanned array radar which is clearly not the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.189.149 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  HQ-17 (China Variant) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tor missile system. 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/20070523020525/http://www.metrowagonmash.ru/english/gm5955.htm to http://www.metrowagonmash.ru/english/gm5955.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606051354/http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=154&mid=2891&wversion=Staging to http://www.vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=154&mid=2891&wversion=Staging
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Twitter link: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1501938378878558220?s=20&t=Tn9VLl_8--YqXMbhDN0MvA
Could we add Igor as a new operator of the TOR missile system? I think we should also add Ukrainian farmers as they have conquered a few. Waerth (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why there is so much cope against listing Igor under current operators. To the first point that "there needs to be a better source than twitter". If that's the case then why is North Korea listed as a TOR missile system operator with no sources? Why is Cyprus on the list of operators if the source for them operating the TOR broken? And to the second point, I don't think I even have to express how ridiculous it is to suggest that the weapon system has to be verified as operational to be put on the list. Its a slippery slope which could justify the removal of almost every single operator from the list. Tsparkst (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It would be hard to get a better reference given the current circumstances. I think the picture of him next to one is evidence enough? I suspect there will be many more Ukranian farmers coming into possession of such pieces of equipment. Good to document.Gruffmeister (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

text: you dont know if any of them are working. North Korea? really? we have verified that? good sources? it works? 74.83.106.216 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text: By that definition, Russia isn't an operator either. 202.153.215.203 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

text: https://twitter.com/Orxan_012/status/1502885319124869131 new proof, it looks fully operational with ammo (second video) Mrcartinez (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I think there's a danger of it being misinformation and undue due to poor sourcing. But seems like I'm in the minority. No worries. I've reinstated it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree particularly with the sourcing issue. I like the approach with the subsection and context, more than I do the referencing. But let's see how this goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all. It leaves space for further developments. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New operator

message: There is no aviable proof that Igor has lost acces to his TOR missile system so dont act like a nerd. Igor from Ukraine (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Igor from Ukraine Agreed LeoneH (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor 

message: To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment. 
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Daily Star (United Kingdom) is not a reliable source, per WP:NPPSG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add private ownership section 

message: To follow on the Igor discussion, I believe it would be more worthwhile to add a private ownership section, dedicated to commercial operators of TOR systems. Similar sections exist for comparable military equipment. 
Specifically, due to the significant amount of Russian equipment lost over the last few days, there will be a large number of TOR systems in private ownership. It is worthwhile to note these 12.138.28.14 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. casualdejekyll 12:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add private ownership section 

message: Change "an Ukrainian civilian"
to "a Ukrainian civilian" under "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" NoahT07 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022 

message: The performance of the system in the Ukrainian conflict is not accurately portrayed in the combat history section. The information about Russian variants being towed is also incorrect. KingLar2010 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 

message: Found a guy who put a message on the wrong section of the talk page. I shall reproduce his post here, verbatim.
hello. can i put in igor who found a abandoned one. as i think i found a good source. https://meaww.com/ukrainian-man-on-a-stroll-claims-20-million-15-million-russian-9-k-330-tor-tank-abandoned-in-forest
Ninjaxavier (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another guy on the talk page about Igor 

message: I removed :File:Soviet Udaloy class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov (1990).JPEG because I think the image is irrelevant and its caption is wrong. "SA-N-9 launcher on the Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov" - some editor thought Kinzhal missile compartment was the white structure ahead of 100-mm guns. I found a drawing of Udaloy destroyers online (in Russian, 1st part  and 2nd part ), according to it, that white structure (#2) is "вентиляторные" (ventilyatornyye - 'fan' per Google, likely the fans of some ventilating system). Centaur271188 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Self reverted . Centaur271188 (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‎3K95 Kinzhal (naval variant) 

message: there was and is no evidence that morocco posseses  TOR Missile systems. 92.218.146.145 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  morocco