Talk:List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Polish

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force

Hello

This is much better, having the equipment info on a sub page. Recon.Army (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bergepanzer 3

If I'm correct polish army don't operate any of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.154.76 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not correct, they do have them. --74.65.227.150 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPB Anders

WPB Anders		Poland	Multirole Combat Platform	Light tank Infantry fighting vehicle	?	1,000 on order[1]

I removed this sourced information - notice it's not actually an order, but plan to purchase up to 1000 tracked vehicles of various type. --SojerPL (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

ZDPSR "SOŁA".jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

@Tbx3571: you have moved this page five times in the past three days, despite it being moved back by three different editors. This is a type of edit warring that is not permitted, (and which you are already aware due to the numerous warnings on your talk page). You need to stop this disruptive behavior and start discussing. - wolf 19:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I make it five times in the past two hours. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: yep, on it. Feel free to join in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tbx3571 reported by wolf (Result: ). Cheers - wolf 20:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbx3571: If you feel that the Polish Land Forces' equipment list should not follow the standard used for other militaries, please feel free to justify the move here. If you can establish WP:Consensus, then the move can be made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed pretty much all firearms and artillery pieces in Warsaw Pact standard even though they are still in service.

This is a surprise for me but whoever did this I have to ask you a question. Why? What for? Yes those are two questions. But I see no purpose in removing them. It is obvious that Poland being former WP member does have plenty of WP standard weapons even if they are in limited service they are still being used! In a matter of fact even several Polish weapons were removed just because they were designed in soviet times. Ridiculous! Few examples: Assault rifles AKM and several other variants - still used for training and several units in "the boonies" standard reserve weapon. wz.1960 - ne reports about it being retired. Pistols: P-83 pistol - not yet retired. Machine Guns: Dshk- used on Dana SPG. NSV - used on T-72 and ARVs. PKM - used together with UKM-2000. M134 - not a WP weapon but still missing from this list - used on MI-17 helicopters Grenade-based weapons: pallad grenade launchers - used with beryl rifles. F1, RG-42, RG-42 - soviet grenades in Polish service. RGo-88, UGD-200, CGR-42a - Polish designed grenades including training ones. Polish designed rifle grenades : GNPO, NGZ-93, NGD-93 and NGOS. Portable anti-material weapons: RPG-7 - Basic RPG in Polish service. Carl Gustaff - used by Polish airborne.

And so on and on. List is lacking soviet mortars and field arty (in storage others used for ceremonial purposes but that means it still is being used!) Soviet trucks like kraz-255 and utility vechicles like uaz-469 (command versions)

As you can see number of removed weapons and vechicles is huge! Whoever is responsible please correct your mistake and repair this list, otherwise it is pointless. 31.183.154.229 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@31.183.154.229 considered it done WykoxPL (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WykoxPL: I've decided to bring back old version of section "Infantry weapons" because editor: Aramazd, OAramazdO (probably one person with "unique" other nicknames) decided to remove without any sources any weapon which could be considered as old. Worse things happend in section "Vehicles" - for god sake, no one ever ordered AMZ Bóbr-3, there are under tests, but still, there are 0 of these vehicles in service, in fact, BRDM-2 are still in use, want some photos from this year? We should watch over him, because this page has a long list of wrong informations here. - WykoxPL 11:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC+1)

K9A2 or K9A1

"the K9PL system is to make use of the K9A2 technologies - including the autoloader system that made it possible to reduce the crew needed to operate the howitzer to 3 soldiers."

https://defence24.com/armed-forces/polish-k9pl-howitzers-unveiled-photos

It's based on the K9A1 variant of course, as those will be modernized, but to the K9A2 standard, so technically they're K9A2. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'll change it tomorrow. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwdwadafsainainawinfi No, they're not. https://twitter.com/krzysztof_atek/status/1597577719411511296?t=x9gpzHwvucxuMG_IBT84qQ&s=19

This is tweet from Polish Armaments Agency Spokesman, which says that K9PL will be based on K9A1 standard, with probably minor changes adopted from AHS Krab and K9A2. WykoxPL (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

WZT Hardun.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mossberg 500's

Why is the shown number of guns so low? The source doesn't relate to the guns and the page about the mossberg's say that there's over 50 thousand in use by the MP's but that also seems way to high does anyone know more definatively? Hussaria1 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MATV

Before the purchase of 79 MATV last year, there were already 45 MATV in the armed forces. totaling now to be 124 MATV’s. Ilikeclouds (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gustaf M4

Currently the page says that Poland has > 6,000 launchers. Of course this is not true, as deliveries are only just starting (if they even did). So what should we put as the actual quanity?

My ideas:

0/6000

?/6000 Blitzkriegfree (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPG-9

If I m correct SPG-9 73 mm recoilless rifles have been retired from Polish land forces. Therefore I will be deleting SPG-9 from Polish land forces. If I m wrong feel free to add SPG-9 back to the page.

Some Sources I have found concerning SPG-9 73 mm recoilless rifles being retired are below.

Source 1: Article Name: Carl-Gustaf M4 for the Polish Armed Forces gustaf-m4-for-the-polish-armed-forces/ Article URL: https://milmag.pl/en/carl-gustaf-m4-for-the-polish-armed-forces/ Author: Rafał Muczyński-milmag.pl Date: 5/3/2024

Source 2: Article Name: Przeciwpancerna pięść Wojska Polskiego ze Szwecji. Wielki kontrakt Article URL: https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/nowoczesne-granatniki-dla-wojska-polskiego-jest-umowa?srsltid=AfmBOorHZZsISE1usvVc8e69RYWtDQHXixb-pN4YVLVR2rTaVlHq9F15 Author: Jakub Palowski-Defense 24 Date: 4/3/2024 Shadowfax33 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Contents

@Shadowfax33: welcome to Wikipedia! this is the place to hold discussion about disagreements. The order of all the content subjects should follow a logical sequence, as per wikipedia rule mos:LONGDAB which states “Readers should be able to navigate down to what they want in one pass" - placing "Artillery" near the bottom of the list by air defense and aircraft can throw readers off. The list starts with infantry items, then moves to vehicles including tanks, ARTILLERY, MLRS, mortars, IFVs, armored vehicles, logistics - and then it ends with air defense and aircraft, which can be justified on the basis that this is the Polish LAND Forces, so I can understand the logic of placing air assets at the end. However to place Artillery next to unrelated categories doesn't seem like best practice. There's no uniform format that all military equipment lists must follow, unless you can provide it - there's variation between different countries, and it's not a big deal to make common sense adjustments as with Artillery by changing it's place in the order of contents, next to other related equipment categories. We successfully came to an agreement that logistical vans shouldn't be placed into the off-road vehicles category, and I hope we can come to a constructive conclusion on artillery - as there's other work to do such as Piorun and Grom have been placed by someone in the anti-tank weapons category when we all know that they're infantry launched air defense. Jacek415 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacek415 Hello,I hope you are doing well. The order of all the content subjects does follow a logical sequence or rather it did before you removed the combat vehicles section and reverted all my and other users' edits simultaneously. Readers can scroll down to find artillery equipment if they wish. You mentioned the LONGDAB rule “Readers should be able to navigate down to what they want in one pass". I could use this rule to place air defense or helicopter equipment right at the front of the page because by that rule readers should navigate the page with just one pass but this approach can make the page look more chaotic. You can take a look at how the table of contents looks now vs before, why are main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles aren't part of any section? they used to be a part of the "combat section" before you removed it and added the "Armored vehicles" section while placing artillery next to the main battle tanks. I do agree with you that the artillery section should be more to the top of the page, however I don't think it's the best idea to have the artillery section right next to the main battle tanks, perhaps we can reach an understanding of placing artillery equipment bellow "Infantry fighting vehicles" or we can add Infantry fighting vehicles, perhaps to Armored vehicles section and placing artillery section below it what do you think?. Regarding the Piorun and Grom Man-portable air-defence systems, I have created a section called "Man-portable air-defence systems" while simultaneously deleting Piorun and Grom equipment from anti-tank equipment so that is no longer an issue. Shadowfax33 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these vehicles can be considered "combat vehicles" to varying degrees, that subcategory creates unnecessary confusion for readers, the majority of people don't have time to waste clicking through subcategories. Give them what they want in one easy visual pass of the table of contents. Artillery is one of the main systems, and for the sake of convenience for readers, it's place is at the top of the list under tanks. The key systems that readers are interested in should be at the top. Infantry fighting vehicles are in an appropriate location as they are in their own class above MRAPs, Hummers, and APCs - as IFVs are armed with significant firepower - but they're not more significant than artillery by any means. Why did you hide MLRS in the artillery subcategory as well? That's a system that should be easily found in the table of contents for readers. The key theme should be making information easier to find for readers, and we should assume that they don't know what's significant, and place topics in a manner that's easy for them to understand. Jacek415 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowfax33 if you really want to find a better place for artillery - it's arguably the #1 most important asset today, so I'd put it at the top above all other vehicles yet below infantry. This would place tanks next to IFVs as you suggested, while keeping the most important equipment at the top.

Side note #1: A new subcategory for self-propelled mortars should be made.

Side note #2: the infantry mortars have no place in the vehicles section and should be put back into infantry weapons.

I hope this is a tenable solution, all the best! Jacek415 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will place the artillery subcategory above the main battle tanks. Regarding Side note #1 and Side note #2 I placed mortars in the infantry weapons subcategory and removed them from the artillery subcategory. Shadowfax33 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. Sorry for the late reply, if adding another subcategory is unnecessary confusion for readers perhaps it is better to add main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to the armoured vehicles subcategory. Regarding the MLRS systems, I added them to the subcategory artillery.

Shadowfax33 (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kbkg wz. 1960

It says that most of them were replaced by Pallad, which is being replaced by GBO-40. Is there any evidence that Kbkg wz. 1960 is still in use? I couldn't find any pictures of it's modern usage, nor any sources that would confirm this. Blitzkriegfree (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, http://opisybroni.pl/karabinek-granatnik-wz-1960-70/ states that it's still used for training. Blitzkriegfree (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I was also wondering if Kbkg wz. 1960 was still in use Shadowfax33 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]