Talk:PT-76

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese / Indian / Russian & Soviet / South Asia B‑class

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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Indian military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force South Asian military history task force

Template:WP Tanks I don't know who wrote that the PT-76 was replaced by the BMP-1 but that's not the case. The two were designed for quite different missions and while some operators might have used the BMP as a light tank the Soviets didn't use it for that.

Wasn't the PT-76 replaced by the BMP-R in the reconnaissance role (the statement in the article is still wrong)? —Michael Z. 2005-07-13 14:25 Z

I saw a picture of more than 15 of these going down Moswcow streets,but they could have been the BMP-1. Dudtz 7/20/05 2:19 PM EST

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)[reply]

I changed the factory's name which built the PT-76 but on the following website it states the vehicle wasn't built there until 1958.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/pt-76.htm

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Its V-6, 6-cylinder, 4-stroke, in line, water-cooled, diesel engine..." The engine is a water cooled, 4-stroke diesel, and it has 6 cylinders, but is it a v6, or does "in line" describe the water cooling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.65.202 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V-6 is the model number of the engine, which is a straight six - effectively half of the V12 engine that powers the T-54.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sentence so it should be less confusing. BP OMowe (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PT-76. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]