Talk:Battle of Grozny (August 1996)

Result
I've replaced decisive chechen victory with ceasefire agreement since Chechens failed to drive Russian forces out of the city. Russian forces got the city surrounded and assault was being prepared. Also there is no solid source that suggests that Russian forces in Grozny were 15000 to 20000. The interviews with Russian commander Poulikovsky and officers who participated in defending the city suggest much smaller numbers. For example, Russian Wiki states 6000 interior ministry troops were garrisoned, but there've been at least 100 VDV paratroopers also, so there's no need to be guessing until a solid source is mentioned. Many of the MVD and FSB personnel listed were not combat-capable, like investigators etc. Here are the interviews with Pulikovsky and commander of one of the fortified objects Chechens aimed to capture (in Russian): http://rutube.ru/tracks/3866899.html?v=4265c9941a8137cbe802095a7daadfdb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.26.118.204 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian losses
What's the source? --HanzoHattori 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs more Citations (Assessment note)Cam (Chat) 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Flamethrowers - or anti-tank rockets?
In the section "Russian counterattacks (August 7-11)" it is said that the defenders used "a large supply of RPO flamethrowers" (captured) against Russian tanks.

However, the link is to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel_%28Bumblebee%29 which is a rocket launcher not a flamethrower.

Although flamethrowers can sometimes be effective against tanks, I am assuming the text "flamethrowers" is an error, unless anyone can suggest otherwise? -Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmph, I've fixed it myself. I guess no-one pays much attention to this talk page :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Shmel is flamethrower not in it's standard sense as barrel with tube. RPO stands for Reactive Infantry Flamethrower. With reactive meaning rocket-connected in this case. - Sayfulhaqq (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio problem
Te article is based mostly on http://www.watchdog.cz/index.php?show=000000-000005-000004-000128&lang=1 - to the point of copyvio - and needs to be basically rewritten more properly using other sources (including those not listed here). Newspaper articles online might be hard to come by today, but there are many books available on the subject. --Niemti (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.watchdog.cz/index.php?show=000000-000005-000004-000128&lang=1. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Grozny (August 1996). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1996%2F08%2F22%2Fwrus22.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000824155856/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-014.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-014.pdf

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) 02:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)