| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:AT-13 Saxhorn-2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If you want an answer to why, by the way, there's a couple reasons: | If you want an answer to why, by the way, there's a couple reasons: | ||
*A fair few of our founding users are of the age where their main references are Cold War-era books and documentaries: in these, these aren't just the NATO names of these systems, they're often the ''only'' names given to these systems (mainly because the GRAU designations weren't widely known in the West). As a casual example I have a book from 1983 called ''Rockets and Missiles of World War III'' which will only ever use the NATO reporting name. | *A fair few of our founding users are of the age where their main references are Cold War-era books and documentaries: in these, these aren't just the NATO names of these systems, they're often the ''only'' names given to these systems (mainly because the GRAU designations weren't widely known in the West). As a casual example I have a book from 1983 called ''Rockets and Missiles of World War III'' which will only ever use the NATO reporting name. | ||
*The AT-(number) system is much, much easier to remember than the GRAU inventory code. I could tell you the NATO names from memory, I doubt I could manage a single one of the GRAU codes. | *The AT-(number) system is much, much easier to remember than the GRAU inventory code. I could tell you the NATO names from memory (which, when you think about it, isn't surprising since that's the whole point of those codes), I doubt I could manage a single one of the GRAU codes. | ||
*The AT- codes are kind of convenient in that they | *The AT- codes are kind of convenient in that they can be used to refer to the missile or the system as a whole without being any less correct: the GRAU designations applied to the systems in various sources are much more confusing. AT-3 is usually referred to by the GRAU code 9M14 which is the code for the missile, AT-4 is 9K111 which is the entire system, AT-5 is 9M113 which is the missile, AT-13 is 9K115-2 which is the entire system, and AT-14 is 9M133 which is the missile. I have no idea why it works that way. | ||
[[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:38, 8 August 2018 (EDT) | [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:38, 8 August 2018 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 8 August 2018
If you want an answer to why, by the way, there's a couple reasons:
- A fair few of our founding users are of the age where their main references are Cold War-era books and documentaries: in these, these aren't just the NATO names of these systems, they're often the only names given to these systems (mainly because the GRAU designations weren't widely known in the West). As a casual example I have a book from 1983 called Rockets and Missiles of World War III which will only ever use the NATO reporting name.
- The AT-(number) system is much, much easier to remember than the GRAU inventory code. I could tell you the NATO names from memory (which, when you think about it, isn't surprising since that's the whole point of those codes), I doubt I could manage a single one of the GRAU codes.
- The AT- codes are kind of convenient in that they can be used to refer to the missile or the system as a whole without being any less correct: the GRAU designations applied to the systems in various sources are much more confusing. AT-3 is usually referred to by the GRAU code 9M14 which is the code for the missile, AT-4 is 9K111 which is the entire system, AT-5 is 9M113 which is the missile, AT-13 is 9K115-2 which is the entire system, and AT-14 is 9M133 which is the missile. I have no idea why it works that way.