This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Land vehicles / Russian & Soviet 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 Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

signed and everything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mUIPPH740 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.215.176 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyboby have the reference for the Pantsir-S1 having the NATO reporting name SA-22 Greyhound? I think it is a US DoD reporting name (not NATO). Germ 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army#Air_defence_Missile_Systems

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw070522_1_n.shtml

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=177315

Unfortunately very poor. Opening sentence mangled. Sometimes forgets the definite article ('the'). Verbs are often wrong ('further test will taken place')

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr FFB (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F15 2.5+ mach is for high altitude and clean

1000m/s missle speed = 3600km/hr F15 = 917 km/h cruising speed at optimum altitude

Training is not relevant if as reported Russian are still manning the systems. --Infojam 14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sure what you mean...

-Germ (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a upgrade of the 9K22 Tunguska, should we merge them as it has been done with S-300, Tor missile system and Buk missile system? --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) would you merge the F-22 article with the F-15. it's technically an upgrade. don't be silly. they are very different systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Of course NOT. this is not like the S-300 or S-400 which is even more complicated. this Pantsir-S1 is a completely new SAM system. It's a "system" because it's made in modules, this is, you can have several chassis or mounts for the SYSTEM. It's a completely new system from the Tunguska. Sure, an upgrade, but an upgrade doesn't mean it's equal or similar. It's an upgrade to a different and new system with new and updated capabilities. It's like saying the F-22 article should be merged with the F-15 because it's an upgrade. Yeah it's an upgrade but it's a different system. The S-300 system is way much more complex because S-300 it's not even the name of a single system, it has many variants and because a S-300 system has several components, radar module, missiles module, service module etc which from variant to variant. Even the S-400 is based and shares several components and modules from some S-300 systems. Also those variants have very different objectives and capabilities. On the other hand the Pantsir-S1 is just a module and it's always the same system. It's not similar to the Tunguska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.220.21 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The syrian air defence has just shot down a turkish Phantom fighter jet, which flew recce mission 1km from their shore (border violation). The syrians have uploaded to Youtube the video of the incident, which is of poor mobile phone quality, but the sound of short-burst autocannon fire is clearly audible here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdIEmyvyJYo

This nullifies press reports that claim syria used the recently delivered BUK missiles to down the Phantom jet from a greater distance. The turkish pilots ran into a disguised Pantsir 6x6 gun battery. Another insight is that apparently the russian advisors managed to break the zionist jamming tech, which made syrian air defence neutered during that previous reactor bombing incident. Turkish warplanes carry zionist-made electronic warfare pods. Maybe the jews purposefully disabled those turkish jamming systems, after Ankara broke up with Tel-Aviv over the palestinian apartheid situation? 87.97.53.161 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Turkish FM who told at a TV interview aired on 24 June 2012, the Turkish a/c that involved in the incident was an unarmed RF-4E. The a/c had shot down on international waters and fell to the Syrian waters. He denied border violation and insisted on Syrian Air Defence shot at TAF a/c without any alert as this is the usual case in border violances. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-284462-turkey-says-jet-shot-down-in-international-airspace.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Rugyu (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover if Turkish claims are the truth itself, the AD system involved in the event can not be Pantsir, because of 2 reasons, namely; 1-a/c shot at 13 miles west of Syrian coast that means more than the 20 km range of the Pantsir's missile. 2-On the youtube video given as a link above, although gun fire is audible (highly possible it's not the real event, maybe a kind of self-acquittance film) but the range of the cannons is just 4 km. Finally adding to the picture that, no RWR alert is reported (so there was no radar lock) it is possible to assume it was a modernised SA-3 that had laser/IR homing capability. Rugyu (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Military Prosecutor Office's findings, after metalurgical analyses it's clear that the weapon used in the downing of Turkish RF-4 is a "missile" not an AA gun. Holes at vertical tail are not bullet holes and traces of potassiumchlorate is found at tail which is used as an oxidiser in missiles and also used in explosives. The Missile exploded at left aft of the aircraft and made it uncontrollable (this is my comment:also made pilots unconscious for this reason they did not eject theirselves). Also in memory of RWR there is record of a missile warning. Moreover it is mentioned that missile is likely a SA-3 but after chemical analyses the picture would be brighter (i.e.which warhead so which missile is used at the event). This details are mentioned in a Turkish newspaper, but unfortunately not mentioned at this english version: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-292796-military-report-says-turkish-jet-downed-in-syrian-missile-attack.html Rugyu (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 quadruple SA-3 launchers at this coordinates 35.33.48N, 35.44.14E. And these are coordinates of the RF-4E at which last stable flight data is taken (altitude 7400 feet, speed 300 knots, heading 211) 35.48.22N, 35.33.21E. Using Googleearth you may measure the distance between these coordinates. It is very near but less than 35 km. For coordinate data refer to http://yenisafak.com.tr/gundem-haber/fuzeyle-dusuruldu-20.09.2012-410332Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Rugyu (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"An undisclosed number of Syrian Armed Forces Pantsir-S1 weapon systems were deployed to guard the airspace over the Iranian-North Korean-built nuclear reactor in the northern Syrian town of Al-Kibar on 6 September 2007[8]; however, they were unable to fend off the Israeli airstrike due to electronic attack and jamming from attacking aircrafts"

At that time they were not even there ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EErUMjjA7c&feature=channel Interview with the head of the KB. Pls correct the wrong information. Minute 1.30 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.75.250.185 (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote references to an article in the DEBKAFile (debka.com). It writes about newly deployed Pantsyr-1 which still according to the very same article failed to defend Syria's nuclear reactors five years ago. It contradicts even with itself. It's only source seems to be itself and still it's able to tell that Pantsyr was used to down Turkish fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranor (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK which source is more reliable, the one from DEBKA files probably the MOST unreliable source ever. OR THE HEAD OF THE Construction Bureu WHO actually build and delivered them!!!! PLEASE watch the video and edit the article. THANK YOU!--79.254.111.50 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ and a requirement that was put forward was to work in the movement = without any restrictions that has already been done when the first batch went for export all built systems can run without stopping but I can not find good sources of text (only words on television, and not in English) but the words he says in the movie filmed developer about the developer (many years ago)89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced enough to know if this warrants a place in the wiki page. So I'm leaving it here for others to decide. This article shows photos purporting to be of UAE origin Pantir systems in the hands of Libyan militants. Jeff1948a (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

Hi,

Many people here are probably wondering about the presence of the Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine. Although there are those who claim that multiple sources support such a presence, a closer look at the sources themselves will show that the information is too controversial to be supported by such few sources.

The following sources are used to "support" the "fact" that the Pantsir-S1 is in Ukraine:

• Armament Research Services (ARES)
• Jane's International
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• Business Insider
• Bellingcat Vehicles

It appears as if there are at least five sources that support the claim. Since the claim is very controversial, multiple sources must be given for such a claim to stay according to WP:FRINGE. But let's have a closer look.

ARES: Although this is a reliable source, the Armament Research Services themselves explicitly made it clear that they themselves cannot verify this inquiry and only mentions it as a possiblity. There is also a usage of sources like social media and YouTube which are not reliable despite ARES normally being a reliable source.

Jane's International: This is a very reliable source and should never be considered otherwise. In fact, this reliable source explicitly said that "this cannot be independently verified by IHS Jane's".

Foreign and Commonwealth office: This is a reliable source. However, one reliable source isn't enough to keep such an extremely controversial claim.

Business Insider: This source cites the Foreign and Commonwealth office and is therefore not considered an additional source.

Bellingcat Vehicles: It's not clear if this is a reliable source at all. Even if it is, then you have a total of two sources that support the claim of the Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine. This is not the "multiple" needed for a controversial claim.

Khazar (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing is not entirely true. ARES has recently updated its report about Pantsir-S1 seen in video in Luhansk. It stated:

A video brought to our attention shows a Pantsir-S1 being driven down a highway in Lugansk, Ukraine, a little over a week ago. The location was verified through comparison of landmarks using Yandex maps.

ARES has also uploaded a copy of the original video to YouTube with caption:

A video showing the Pantsir-S1 air defence system on a major road in Lugansk, Ukraine.

(Anyone can indeed verify the claim himself. The location is 48.546240, 39.331236. Direction of movement is South-Eastern. The street can be easily recognized at Yandex Street View).

So ARES has obviously recognized presence of Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine.

Bellingcat Vehicles is a dedicated independent reliable resource about movements of weapons around Russian-Ukrainian border. It verifies all the geolocations through a review process. And it currently has two geolocated sightings of Pantsir-S1 (one in Luhansk and one in Makiivka).

Foreign and Commonwealth Office is another reliable source, which uses the two sources above. It most probably means that the Office verified the evidence and considers it convincing enough to safely make a "controversial" statement, which would likely harm its relationships with Russia (especially if the claim was false).

So we have three reliable independent sources. How many more do you need? --Amakuha (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. YouTube is deemed as an unreliable source and its usage by ARES disqualifies it as a reliable source in this context. Also keep in mind that mentioning a YouTube video does not mean that it recognizes it as true. Jane's International mentioned the pictures as well but did not recognize them as fact and remained skeptical. All in all, you only have two sources to back up the bogus claims. Khazar (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar, there are primary sources (YouTube) and there are secondary sources (ARES, Bellingcat, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office). We use only secondary here. If secondary independent reliable sources, like these three, make a conclusion that Pantsir-S1 was seen in Ukraine in at least two locations, I don't see any reason to not include it in the article.

However, if you know a Wikipedia rule, that says that secondary reliable sources become disqualified as reliable if they use YouTube for making a conclusion, please, point me to such a rule. Otherwise, please, avoid deletion of the information.

Also, I don't see any reason to consider this a fringe theory, as it's widely believed that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists, including Russia's latest equipment such as BPM-97 (at least 10 seen in Ukraine), GAZ Vodnik, BTR-82AM, T-72B3, T-72BA and others, which are listed here. --Amakuha (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is generally not accepted as a reliable source. If you knew this simlpe fact, you would know that what you are doing is directly against the policies of Wikipedia. Also, YouTube videos are only primary sources if the uploader is some original official organization.

I'm not surprised that you don't view this as a fringe theory. Unlike the T-72B3s and BAs, there are only two "high quality" sources which is not enough to keep it in the article. For the latter, there was an enormous amount of coverage with reputed news reports. For this one, you have nothing more than a vehicle tracking website and the UK intelligence. If a source as reliable and as informal as Jane's International (which would have been the reputable out of all of these) cannot confirm these allegations, then shouldn't that tell you that this is an exceptional claim? Better yet, where are the official Ukrainian government accounts of all of this? Khazar (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • WTF??

http://vz.ru/news/2014/11/7/714344.html UN no facts (facts) invasion Russia in Ukraine

http://vz.ru/news/2014/11/7/714354.html US Department of State = no evidence troops of Russia in Ukraine

http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/2/13/729498.html + http://russian.rt.com/article/74114 + http://m.forbes.ru/article.php?id=266459 OSCE we have not seen Russian troops in Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.64 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in Little bonus http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931204001534 + http://agitpro.su/pvo-iraka-sbila-dva-britanskix-samoleta-s-oruzhiem-dlya-igil/ oh yeah, the British supply weapons igil ISIS ISIL - Psak ready to deny? 79.104.198.64 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you can not show even footprint in the snow for as by you mentioned 12,000 soldiers of the Russian Federation in Ukraine http://novorussiya.ru/novosti-rossii/206-minoborony-rf-12-tysyach-chelovek-snezhkom-ne-prisyplesh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.111 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, the original of the report recognizes that there is no convincing evidence. And then it was established that this photo was made on the territory of Russia.^[2] The original document does not indicate the reliability of its assumptions. Some media have published these photos with other statements^[3]. OSCE and the General Staff of Ukraine admitted that it has no evidence of the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine.^{[4][5] [6]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.80 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has any one heard of the Pantsir-1 being referred to as the "Carapace C/C1." For example, here are two articles that make these references:

http://survincity.com/2013/06/division-complex-carapace-c-tipped-night-airstrike/

http://survincity.com/2013/08/carapace-c1-will-cover-the-metropolitan-sky/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagaer meister (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are unreliable sources. In English sources, it is always referred to as the Pantsir-S1. Welcome to Wikipedia and be sure to sign your posts by clicking on the Sign your posts on talk pages: at the bottom of your edit box. Khazar (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.rt.com/news/342072-fowler-airborne-air-defense/ 104.34.250.89 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pantsir-S1. 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/20141109162327/http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=20 to http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=20
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/air-defense-weapon-systems/pantsir-s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084448/http://www.mod.mil.iq/news/2014/9/30/264.html to http://www.mod.mil.iq/news/2014/9/30/264.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pantsir-S1. 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/20130831034402/http://www.army.lv/photos/7914.jpg to http://www.army.lv/photos/7914.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2007-11-30/Russian_Pantsir-S1__best_air_defence_money_can_buy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pantsir-S1. 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/20110823061102/http://newvesti.ru/1428-alzhir-zakupil-v-rossii-38-zenitnyx-kompleksov-pancir-s1.html to http://newvesti.ru/1428-alzhir-zakupil-v-rossii-38-zenitnyx-kompleksov-pancir-s1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_def/air_def_34-38.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118213233/http://www.kommersant.com/p754260/arms_sales_Algeria/ to http://www.kommersant.com/p754260/arms_sales_Algeria/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2340015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506090105/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1883434.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1883434.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206073405/http://cast.ru/eng/journal/2001/1-preliminary/ to http://www.cast.ru/eng/journal/2001/1-preliminary/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318084110/http://www.commersant.com/page.asp?id=547353 to http://www.commersant.com/page.asp?id=547353

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The missile section says that the warhead weighs 20 kg and contains 5.5 kg explosive and 2000 14.5 g fragments and rods. The fragments and rods would then weigh 29 kg i.e. more than the warhead! Perhaps the rods weigh 14.5 g and the fragments less?150.227.15.253 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC) вероятно их ОДНА тысяча, но не 2000. может быть 29-5,5[reply]

The radar of the Pantsir wasn't spinning, it was not operation during the attack. Useful to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.65.135 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps claiming that the footage of the Pantsir S1 getting destroyed by a Turkish drone strike is fake. Can he please show a single reliable source that the footage is fake? Both the footage and the statement from the Turkish MoD confirms that it was destroyed Ahhlanker (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The video actually constists of two separate videos with a clear cut between them, with the second part completely missing the supposed wreck of the vehicle. The source of the footage is Twitter account Clash Report @clashreport, a completely unreliable source (and also full of Turkish war propaganda). The same source published the first video which was shown to be also fake. You claiming that footage and Turkish MoD confirmed it means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfixin (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are using ‘’russian propaganda’’ then. The source is a Turkish news website, the Turkish MoD and a video that has till now not been denied by a Russian or Syrian official. But you keep claiming that it is fake without showing a single reliable source. Just because you think that it is propaganda doesn’t mean that you have the right to remove sourced content. Thats not how Wikipedia works. Show a reliable source with real facts/officials that deny that the video is real and then we can have a discussion about it. Stop vandalizing this page Ahhlanker (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove it because I don't like it, but because it is not properly sourced. That is how Wikipedia works. The Turkish website (cited as source) just took video from the Twitter account i mentioned. Twitter does not count as source. I do not see any other sourcess at all. If you are going to push this thing you are going to find some real sources (looking at the video in question also helps in debunking). Russian or Syrian officials have better things to do than watch videos on random Turkish Twitter accounts, and Turkish news sites that get their news from those Twitter accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfixin (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information and non turkish sources that even second pantsir was shootdown in Syria. The facts make history.We cannot tell the future generations by hiding the history. This is not a platform where the mistakes of the defense industry are hidden. These systems destroyed with help of KORAL Electronic Warfare System. Turkey doesnt sent Koral to Libya. It is impossible that an AA systeem cant see the UAV only with systeems that ability to jam, deceive, and paralyse hostile radars make systeems like Pantsir blind so can even UAV shoot this AA battery. Self-deception and excuses of saying those are fake and it is absolutely childish to say propaganda although we send you tons of resources even non Turkish resources. This is an encyclopedia and the truth is written. Have a good day. Keep watching at the images of Pantsir being shot & don't be stretched read and learn, start by learning KORAL system for ex ♥. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

опираясь на ссылки вы готовы объявить землю плоской. - /* Syria */ https://tgraph.io/Tri-voprosa-k-unichtozheniyu-Pancirya-03-04 =) In addition, in the last frame , the SA-22 disappeared, this is a very low-quality photoshop (smoke and debris). The radar in this video has a shape that has never been used , but such a radar on the same truck is used in the Roland air defense system. Вопрос 3. А где Панцирь?!

Ну и наконец главное. Давайте посмотрим "последний" кадр перед взрывом и последний кадр собственно видео. Кадр перед взрывом мы повернули так, чтобы ракурсы примерно совпали. Мы видим, где должен стоять Панцирь. Если вы видели его вблизи, вы знаете, что это довольно большая четырёхосная машина -- значительно больше обычного самосвала КАМАЗ. От неё должны остаться довольно крупные обломки, части шасси. Но в этом месте ничего нет. Мы отметили красными кружочками обломки, которые уже приземлились на землю. Дым, который вы видите в кадре -- летит над ними и иногда их накрывает. То есть мы хорошо видим поверхность земли, но установка исчезла. Где же она? https://rg.ru/2020/03/02/unichtozhenie-kompleksa-pancir-s1-v-livii-postavili-pod-somnenie.html Несколько позже в социальных сетях обратили внимание, что на видео - боевая машина на шасси автомобиля MAN. В результате через некоторое время сообщение подкорректировали, привязав этот инцидент к Ливии. В последние дни ЗРПК, доставленные из ОАЭ и воюющие на стороне фельдмаршала Хафтара, уничтожили там несколько БПЛА Bayraktar TB2 турецкой стороны.

Однако на "Отваге2004" подвергли сомнению и эту версию. Участник форума Zhigunov сопоставил изображения образцов техники и пришел к выводу, что уничтоженная боевая машина по своей конструкции существенно отличается от российского комплекса. На самом деле, на видео - франко-германский Roland, который также смонтирован на MAN с колесной формулой 8х8. http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2208&p=13#p1304676 Ирано-Иракская война. Иранцы захватили Роланды у иракцев. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian RT has confirmed that 2 Pantsirs/air defense systems were hit and according to them ‘’damaged’’. So this confirms the two videos of the pantsirs being hit and according to the footage, destroyed. So the first footage was not from ‘’Libya’’ either. And the second one was not ‘’CGI’’.See source in Russian for now: ^[7] Maskalaeuba (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So should we just ignore the fact we are dealing with Turkish military propaganda here? Except some blury drone video footages released by "Clash Reports" twitter account to support Turkish MoD claims, this lacks any further evidences or confirmation from other sides of the conflict that the events mentioned by Turkey actually happened on the territory of Syria or that happened at all.

There is still more questions than answers coming from the video footages released by Turkey regarding to the alleged destruction of Syrian air defence assets. Video analysis of the first footage shows visible design differences between the Pantsir system shown in the video and the variant Syrian military has in its inventory, what points out the footage could not be taken on the territory of Syria.[2] The second video footage is no less suspicious from the first one either because of the different angle the drone is recording the site just seconds after the explosion or because of the identical size of most of the debris flying in the air.[3]

Regarding to the Russian MoD claims cited by RT, it confirms only that two systems were damaged, not destroyed as Turkey claimed. The report further adds the damaged Pantsirs were already restored what should be barelly possible taking into account the size of destruction seen on the two video footages. The report also dismisses Turkish claims about eight Pantsirs destroyed in Syria. BlackFlanker (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want this information to be added and the claims that the first footage was from libya and the second one was cgi to be removed. Its clear now that the two footage/videos are real as Russia admitted that two pantsirs were hit Maskalaeuba (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC

It does not prove the claim made by Turkish Twitter page Clash Report. Beacause it claimed the Systems were destroyed not damaged. Also Pro Turkish sources said 8 Sytems were destroyed without providing any backing. The autenticity of the videos have been bebunked as well.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahah, alright this page is full with anti-Turkish russian bots I see. First of all the first footage is not from Libya. No source for that and neither the GNA nor LNA has claimed that the footage is from Libya. Turkish made Bayraktar drones are operated by the GNA in Libya, not by the Turkish military. Every single Turkish source gets either removed or gets accused of ‘’Turkish propaganda’’ even if there is a footage of it. There were 2 videos of pantsirs getting hit and destroyed. Yesterday russia admitted that 2 pantsirs were hit but claimed that they were only ‘’damaged’’. That sounds more like russian propaganda to safe their Pantsir market rather than ‘’Turkish propaganda’’. The Turkish MoD also made earlier statements of 2 pantsirs getting destroyed but whenevers someone added this it got removed by Russian trolls. No wonder that Wikipedia was banned for almost 3 years in Turkey. Just look at this page, full with anti Turkish editors. Anyway, the footage is here and its a fact. Remove/deny as much as you want on wikipedia, it doesn’t change the fact on the ground Maskalaeuba (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Ahahah, alright this page is - ваш мультик слишком фальшивый в отличии от этого https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11970654@egNews https://thebell.io/buk-narushil-zakon-linejnoj-perspektivy-rossiya-rasskazala-o-nestykovkah-v-dele-krusheniya-boinga-nad-donbassom/ в ваш не верит никто.[reply]

https://tgraph.io/Tri-voprosa-k-unichtozheniyu-Pancirya-03-04 =) Кроме того, в последнем кадре исчез SA-22, это очень низкого качества фотошоп (дым и мусор). Радар в этом видео имеет форму, которая никогда не использовалась, но такой радар на том же грузовике используется в системе противовоздушной обороны Роланда. Вопрос 3. А где Панцирь ?!

https://rg.ru/2020/03/02/unichtozhenie-kompleksa-pancir-s1-v-livii-postavili-pod-somnenie.html Несколько позже в социальных сетях обратили внимание на боевую машину на шасси автомобиля MAN. https://iz.ru/985780/2020-03-11/istochnik-prokommentiroval-kadry-unichtozheniia-turtciei-pantciria-v-sirii третья запись - эт не взрыв ЗРПК панцирь, это пуск им ракеты в БЛА.

Turkey claims to be 8 SA-22 (officially)^[1]. Three videos were published: 1) this is not SA-22 (officially) and this video has already been published previously, this is Roland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_(missile)^[2][3], 2) this is Photoshop, immediately after the explosion, SA-22 immediately disappears completely (all 20 tons)Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>, The original video is posted on Twitter turkey&clashreport)^[4] 3) this is a regular launch of missiles ((officially)) and immediately after the shot the frame is cut off (so as not to repeat the error in paragraph 2)^[5]. As a result, after 7 days, 3 of the declared victories were confirmed, but these 3 were refuted. according to the Turks, we destroyed 150 tanks, half of Syria’s air defense, every tenth soldier, hundreds of units of military equipment and hundreds of other vehicles. now we can give half the idlib to Syria without suffering any losses. This is a very very stupid joke, Mr. Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you're writing in the article is incomprehensible and improperly sourced (you can not use bare "ref" tags without any filling, e.g. the publisher information, language of the article etc.), so I've reverted your edits. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 7:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

you are an ordinary liar . all links in this article and in all wikis do not contain what you say . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to understand what you're talking about. Just keep in mind your edits are going to get reverted, unless you properly fill the "ref" tags and start writing in proper English. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stupid Turk. what are tags? make a link to the rules of the site + admit that you are in the shit and lie about the number 8, having managed to make only 3 bad photoshop. otherwise, Iran will make the same joke with you as with the us , just because your tags here will be shoved up your ass there. https://ria.ru/20200211/1564524611.html is that clear to you ?

Well, your language speaks volumes about your intentions on Wikipedia. However, here are the guidelines regarding the reference tag filling - just in case you decide to reconsider your behavior. Also, note that a raw google translate text won't be accepted, even if you fill the ref properly. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is dificult for me to understand what you say. But the article as now, is 100% balanced and neutral. Turkish fanboys and sockpuppets can make all the claims they want. But Videos and Reliable New Outlets show something completely different. Dont worry about that.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided for the June 9 downing of a Turkish drone seems to be contested. The main source provided for this information is a Twitter post, which is contradicted by another post that was made at the same time^[1]. The other post claims that the provided video actually shows Emirati personnel training LNA soldiers. The video itself is actually dated 24 April 2020. There are no reports of a downed Turkish drone from that period. Because of this, the information should be removed until it can be properly verified.--Estonian1885 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I mentioned this earlier as well but some pages from the LNA media released the same footage and claimed that it was an GNA drone, which is indeed wrong Maistara (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ukrainian armed civilians.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One has been spotted in a wagner convoy but need to wait for an RS to cover it.©Geni (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles have documented that Pantsir air defense systems in Syria, Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh were knocked out by drones. The Russian media spread fake news and try to cover up actual losses under the guise of damage and repairs in order not to lose orders from potential buyer countries. 2003:EC:701:1700:549F:404C:B106:4A0F (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]