Talk:M-87 Orkan

Orkan in Georgia
There are no M87 Orkan MLRs in Geiorgian Army. Bosnea wanted to sell their Orkans to Georgia, but Georgia didn't bought them. Kos93 —Preceding comment was added at 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia is not M87 user, never was, Serb Army in Bosnia had 2 M87, one got destroyed by Croatian HV, and 1 was handed over to Serbian Army proper, Bosnian federal Army never had any M97. Serb Army proper has 1M87 and 1 modified M87 based on Zil truck chasis. Mic of orion (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Forward thinking
The article has a rather promotional tone with text like "The Yugoslav ideology when developing the system was based on the premise that countries who copy designs are at least five years behind of those who have the weapons developed. Accordingly the Orkan is unique because it has the ability to disperse antitank or antipersonnel mines up to 50 km from the firing location. This example illustrates the forward thinking that went into designing Orkan". Whilst I very much approve of weapons articles covering the organisational & political background instead of just listing tech specs, we shouldn't let them become a platform for nationalist flag-waving or spam. I do not understand why we should praise a nation for being at the cutting edge of military-technical innovation just for putting rocket launcher tubes on the back of old imported truck designs. bobrayner (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This article talks about a history and current status M-87 Orkan. SFRY was communist social regulated country and had official development and defense strategy and in defense strategy goals considering defense, arms procurement and arms development. There is nothing nationalists or spam in it. You have before this Talk deleted huge part of article based on sentence "Then why is it mounted on an old Mercedes copy?". If you don't have a knowledge about some area or you are not familiar with something is that justification for deletion.

First and above all article M-87 Orkan states that M-87 is mounted on chassis of FAP 2832. Fabrika automobila Priboj-FAP is manufacturer based in Priboj Serbia. If you are not familiar with this type of vehicle designer and manufacturer on what basis do you claim it is just simple old Mercedes Copy. Do you have any justification for that claim? Is there Mercedes law suite for unauthorized copy and were is justification to call it simple copy. And what is Mercedes model and characteristics to claim copy.

About your latest claim "just putting" do you have a knowledge of how many countries of more than 170 countries in world where able to "just putt" MLRS on truck with range of 50km in 1987. Or do you have a list of countries who developed MLRS over 50km in 1987 with types of MLRS just for comparability and giving your claims that there is nothing to praise and that technological achievement is something usual like baking bread and spam.

And last and not less important when i finished reading all your talks i have a question for you do you have political or nationalist prejudice when it comes to Serbia and SFRY and do you use it when moderating articles from that geographic area?
 * It's not an illegal copy. FAP has a license. FAP started copying Saurer trucks, then in 1970 they switched to copying Mercedes trucks. Of course they're still producing NG/SK based trucks which Mercedes replaced decades ago:


 * Of course, if you haven't read Daimler say, or what the Serbian government says, or what FAP themselves say, you could just look at a picture. FAP still boast about their products on their website, using photos of old Mercedes designs which still have a 3-pointed star on them. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First to make a copy or to produce under licence is two different stuff. Second I think you have not read your own references. For example in Serbian government it clearly say that i quote "FAP signed a new licensing agreement with Daimler-Benz and its products have been based on this cooperation" ever since." and "FAP offers its vehicles with power systems manufactured by Mercedes-Benz, Cummins, MAN and Famos". Your saying that FAP 2026 is "old imported truck designs" still doesn't stand at all. It is not even a licence. FAP 2026 is a truck designed by Military Technical Institute Belgrade and not Mercedes Benz. If they have similar look it doesn't mean it is the same. "Products have been based on this cooperation" doesn't mean "old imported truck designs".

"30 year-old engine concept of the OM 352 (130 hp) and the V10 OM 403 with 320 hp" - what is point in this sentences. Is it a point that you say truck uses 30 year old engine in 2013 or today or you say that in 1987 it was modern engine. 2013-1987 = 26 years. Today FAP 2026 uses MERCEDES BENZ OM 906 LA EURO 3 engine and in 1987 and 1978 when entered service it used FAMOS engine based license from the British Leyland and there is today(2013) FAP 2228 which is more modernized version.

Just for your notice FAP 2026 was exported to Egypt and Saudi Arabia(few thousand's s of trucks)

And still you don't give any arguments about M-87 MLRS and that is a point of your previous comments and reason behind unreasonable deletion of huge part of article. MLRS is on table here and not FAP 2026 and your claims that M-87 Orkan is just simple as "putting" on the back of old imported truck designs and therefore it doesn't have technological significance but it is nationalistic or spam. I don't remember that anyone on this planet called Vostok 3KA-3, Saturn V or R-7 Semyorka spam or nationalistic and they are for sure military-technical innovations and many are praising that facts but not making spam from it. Loesorion (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that FAP used to use Leyland engines; I agree that they now use EURO3 engines, and that these are "more modern" than what FAP previously used. It's still a copy of an obsolete design (due to emissions regulations in several developed countries, Mercedes haven't sold Euro 3 for several years). None of this should be a big deal; unfortunately these facts are incompatible with the nationalist fluff about "Orkan was never a copy of any previous designs. The Yugoslav ideology when developing the system was based on the premise that countries who copy designs are at least five years behind of those who have the weapons developed". It's more than five years in this case. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's still a copy of an obsolete design" - you continue you claims without any facts. Because you believe something is obsolete it doesn't make it obsolete. What have a claim "Mercedes haven't sold Euro 3 for several years" with a FAP truck from 1987 or with some other manufacturers truck from any year. "Orkan was never a copy of any previous designs" - what is nationalist in here explain or stop spamming.

Once again you edit this article at 18:27, 22 June 2013 with posting some ridiculous claims from "FAS" organization who btw claimed that Iraq had WMD in 2003 as support Bush administration for military intervention. If you have careful read their article they claimed I quote:"JNA apparently had developed and produced 122mm, 152mm, and 155mm artillery shells; air-delivered bombs (of an unknown type); 122mm, 128mm rockets, and 262mm rockets; and chemical warfare mines. There are unconfirmed reports that the JA has binary sarin munitions fir use with 155mm artillery shells.'

They do not quote any recourse or sources for their article about 262mm missile with chemical warhead so it is imagination of article creator.

There is not a single fact anywhere in the world to confirm that it was ever produced missile with chemical warhead for any of Yugoslavia MLRS including Orkan M-87. It is only speculations.

They use word as "apparently" and "unconfirmed". Let's say that Mercedes "apparently" mounted ss-18 SATAN on their truck because I think so, would you take that as "apparently" or as "THEY have done it" Encyclopedic articles should not be based on believes or faith but on facts. Ana they also claim that FR Yugoslavia was last state in Europe In April 2000 "to agree to adhere to the convention banning chemical weapon". Andorra signed in 2003 and Montenegro signed in 2006 so much about their claims who are most based on political view they have about some state. They also forget to mention that FRY, composed of Serbia and Montenegro was not member of UN between 1992-1999 so how could FR sing a treaty earlier then in 2000 or in 1993 when treaties was ratified for first time by member states. That is truly political point they are making of Yugoslavia and chemical weapons since country did not have access to this convention prior 2000 not by her fault.

And most importantly they "forget" to say Yugoslavia ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWTC - Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction) on October 25, 1973 (Signed 10 April 1972) witch makes SFR Yugoslavia one of founding members of that convention before most of other states in world including most of europe. One more fact about FAS political motivated article is that they have not a single mention about first ever used chemical weapons in history by Great Britain. btw FAS has many technical and other errors, misguidance and political views of technical stuff on their pages related to equipment, air bases, weapons, WMD and etc when they use incorrect data and claiming some unproven situations as facts. They are very unreliable source but they are trying to propose themselves as ultimate guidance for military and WMD as self-commercial propaganda. Loesorion (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't we try to bring the article in line with what reliable sources say? Please take your finger off the revert button. Article ownership is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again in 22:26, 22 June 2013‎ you add section about chemical weapons in Orkan M87 without citing a proper sources for your claim. And you go further in this article and chemical weapons with:Orkan was also capable of deploying chemical weapons; thousands of rockets were made with chemical warheads. Many were deployed in Iraq..."

You are misguiding readers to think there were rockets with chemical warheads delivers to Iraq without references in which is confirmed that fact. In none of references added there is not a single prof or hard citing of chemical warhead and all is hearsay without any proof that even rocket with any kind of warhead for Orkan where on ships mentioned in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loesorion (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Chemical weapons on Orkan M-87?
Should the article contains chemical weapons paragraph for Orkan M-87 Is there any proof of existence for claims that Orkan M-87 had rockets produced with chemical warhead? Thousands of rockets were made with chemical warheads? Loesorion (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In article there is a claim that I quote:thousands of rockets were made with chemical warheads. Many were deployed in Iraq. Creator of that claims is using FAS article as reference which have no valid source for claims and it is only her-say. FAS claims are based on possibilities that Orkan missile could deliver chemical warhead. If take that in account then we could declare every missile as potential chemical and every country in world on that basis could be accused of having missile with chemical warheads.

Second reference is about a book who relays on so called Intelligence reports which is used to justify war in 2003 against Iraq on basis of weapon of mass destruction what has become by worldwide public knowledge a hoax, fraud, fake and big lie to justify invasion on Iraq.

To further make the foundations of claims user is giving as next information: "Orkan ammunition was found on the Boka Star, a ship thought to be smuggling arms to Iraq in contravention of an embargo" with references to Croatia tabloids.

Here it is public information from Croatian police about "Boka Star" ship and cargo at http://zagrebacka.policija.hr/728.aspx. There is not a single word abut missiles for Orkan. All cargo is determined by experts as single base and two base gunpowder and nothing else. During trial it is not clearly established that ship was heading for Iraq and some of defendants where realized from prison as accusation was not justified.

It is a worth to mention that almost all talking about FR Yugoslavia chemical weapons have come prior Iraq war. It is always used in connections that Yugoslavia had chemical weapons when talked about Iraq chemical weapons. There was not a single missle for Orkan found in Iraq with chemical warhead. There is no single proof of exiting missiles for Orkan with chemical warheads in whole world.

Why not say there is a Nuke warhead for Orkan if we use same principal to establish existence of WMD as user who edited this article and added chemical weapons? Loesorion (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Loesorion, if I may offer a Third Party Opinion on this as part of Wikipedia's general policies for Requesus For Comments I would like to note that the primary issue you mention has the exact full quote of:
 * Orkan was also capable of deploying chemical weapons; thousands of rockets were made with chemical warheads. Many were deployed in Iraq. Orkan ammunition was found on the Boka Star, a ship thought to be smuggling arms to Iraq in contravention of an embargo.


 * Extensive Google searching turns no no legitimate evidence for any chemical weapons whatsoever being used within Iraq by any of the many warring factions before, during, or after the indicated time period. There are a fairly long series of unfounded claims in the extant mainstream media asserting that chemical and biological weapons were being developed within Iraq, all of which were deliberate lies, however no forward-based rockets of any kind within any of the combat theatures were discovered (or even alleged) by any legitimate, verifiable source.


 * At the same time the ship in question that was interdicted was not confirmed to have been carrying chemical munitions though there is some reason to believe the military command reports that the indicated weapon was (in disassembled form) on board. The fact that the weapon was on board does not mean that chemical or biological munitions were also on board, so both suspect statements in the quoted text are almost certainly false.


 * The text should be removed and the Talk:M-87_Orkan page should be continued to be use to evaluate further proposed evidence for the suggestion that said weapon literally carried chemical munitions in to Iraq. If testable, verifiable evidence is found which shows that the 87 Orkan did in fact carry chemical weapons in to Iraq, then we can restore the text with a suitable reference to it.


 * I recommend the removal of the text. Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I would add that the references offered do not support the text for which the references are applied. Two of the references do not support the claim, the other two are not in English however Google's translator is able to pick through the references to some degree and neither of those two references appear to support the claim for which they are applied. All four references appear to be irrelevant to the text for which the references are applied, ergo the four references are not legitimate. Damotclese (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No - The assertion is not supported by reliable sources, end of story. Jschnur (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking in to the history of the second claim (many were deployed in iraq) it appears that the partisan pundits at FOX "News" was either the primary source for this claim else the claim was fed to them by the GOP. It's difficult to pick through the Google results yet it appears that the claim crops up first on FOX and quickly got shot down by actual news outlets. It was "wishful thinking" by politicians who picked up on the FOX "News" claim for a short period of time yet most Republicans abandoned the claim fairly quickly. If we can find any verifiable reports confirming the claim, the claim should be re-instated to the article with the suitable references. Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Improved article
Article is improved by adding additional information's, new organization and by adding 8 new references. There is still a section about "chemical" weapons and 4 references that are recommended to be deleted by user Damotclese as response to RfC: Chemical weapons on Orkan M-87?. If there is some objection to improved article please post here in talk your objection before editing. And please read all references before objecting in interest of common goal of all editors to improve articles. Thx. Loesorion (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to rework the Chemical Weapons section to remove the claims that can not be verified which have references that are offered yet don't support the text. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

more RfC
I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Feedback request service alerted to your RfC. A couple of thoughts:

1. the current reading:
 * Orkan is capable of deploying chemical weapons, and despite unverified claims in the United States about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Orkan-capable chemical munitions were alleged yet never located by International inspectors anywhere within Iraq. In the year 2002 a disassembled Oran was discovered by Croatian authorities on the Boka Star, a ship suspected of attemping to smuggle arms to Iraq in contravention of an embargo and a series of Sanctions against Iraq, however despite the interdiction and recovery of the weapon, no chemical munitions of any kind were being smuggled by the Boka Star.

... is not written in encyclopedic style.

Do you have any sources talking about its capability of deploying chemical weapons? who alleged there were Orkan-capable chemical munitions? Was there a report saying they were never located by International inspectors anywhere within Iraq? If so add them as a citation. If not no need to mention the issue.

2. the FAS article, since deleted as a cite in the M-87 article, does talk about chemical weapons on rockets: "thousand of rockets for the 262mm multiple rocket launcher system, were produced with chemical weapons warheads filled with phosgene and BZ", but makes no mention of the M-87 Orkan. So IMO, whether or not it is WP:RS it's rightly discarded from the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings, BoogaLouie! When the RFC was requested, it was to review the text
 * (1)Orkan was also capable of deploying chemical weapons; (2)thousands of rockets were made with chemical warheads. (3)Many were deployed in Iraq. (4)Orkan ammunition was found on the Boka Star, (5)a ship thought to be smuggling arms to Iraq in contravention of an embargo.
 * Which contained 5 claims which I have numbered above. 1, 2, and 3 could not be supported by any verifiable, legitimate, testable sources, only 4 and 5 have suitable, verifiable references.
 * Since you're the officially-selected RFC, how about we conclude as you suggest, that the entire section on chemical weapons be removed entirely? I had been leaning toward that direction when I saw the RFC and thought I'd chime in as a third party on it. If that's agreeable, let's remove the whole section which, I believe, the individual requesting the RFC also suggested. Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I should add I'm just a volunteer, not an admin or official wikipedia anything. As far as deleting the whole Chemical Weapons section, the one thing I can think of that might be salvaged from it is to put the sentence 
 * In the year 2002 a disassembled Oran was discovered by Croatian authorities on the Boka Star, a ship suspected of attempting to smuggle arms to Iraq in contravention of an embargo and a series of Sanctions against Iraq . 
 * in parentheses in the Operational history section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

BoogaLouie if you read report from Croatian police http://zagrebacka.policija.hr/728.aspx you will find that there were no Orkan or anything about him on Boka Star ship. Is it wiki encyclopedia or tabloid to keep such a nonsense?Loesorion (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Google returns 358 results for the search term orkan "boka star" and it looks like a third of them or so are weapons or ships fan pages, another third quote this Wikipedia article, many of the remaining references are on pages that are pro- or anti- various warring factions and ideologies. There are a few pages in foreign languages which Google Translater tends to mangle but do a good enough job to make me think that it's likely that there are legitimate reports that Orkan was aboard the Boka Star when it was intercepted.
 * Yet chemical weapons? No. What was found was chemical propellants for the Orkan, munitions that are not banned in any country or theature of war I'm familiar with.
 * Thanks for your help, BoogaLouie, I think if nobody objects, at the end of the day I will remove the entire section on chemical weapons yet, as you suggest, some mention of the Orkan being intercepted on the Boka Star seems a good idea. As we can see, it just kind of muddies the water to suggest chemical weapons were located, and while the Orkan can carry them, the text just wasn't verifiable.
 * It is fascinating to see how such a mundane claim got replicated widely across the Internet without any testable, verifiable reference. I expect the claim will continue to propagate elsewhere over time. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On further review, I'll take back my recommendation that the sentence about a disassembled Oran being discovered on the Boka Star "might be salvaged". I assumed the sentence was backed by the citation given. AFAICT it ain't. The nationmaster.com story -- the source -- only says that Serbia and Montenegro manufacture the 262mm M-87 Orkan multiple rocket launcher, and that 208 solid-propellant rocket fuel components were confiscated from the Boca Star. Nothing about a disassembled Oran in the Boca Star. Nothing about the solid-propellant rocket fuel being for the Orkan. So unless I am missing something, I have to agree the whole Chemical weapons In Iraq section should go. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Awesome, looks like we have a concensus. :) Thanks! Your help is greatly appreciated. Damotclese (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M-87 Orkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005001805/http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/index.php/region_profiles/print_theme/1642 to http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/index.php/region_profiles/print_theme/1642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M-87 Orkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151125065217/http://www.edepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/r267_techtable.gif to http://www.edepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/r267_techtable.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

origin of "Orkan"
It might be useful to put in where the name Orkan came from :) 157.127.124.155 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on M-87 Orkan. 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/20131005001805/http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/index.php/region_profiles/print_theme/1642 to http://www.the-monitor.org/custom/index.php/region_profiles/print_theme/1642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M-87 Orkan. 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/20151125112125/http://www.odbrana.mod.gov.rs/odbrana-stari/odbrana069/08-11.pdf to http://www.odbrana.mod.gov.rs/odbrana-stari/odbrana069/08-11.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130624212324/http://www.vucurovic.com/index.html to http://www.vucurovic.com/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125112125/http://www.odbrana.mod.gov.rs/odbrana-stari/odbrana069/08-11.pdf to http://www.odbrana.mod.gov.rs/odbrana-stari/odbrana069/08-11.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.edepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/r267_techtable.gif
 * Added tag to http://www.edepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/r400_techtable.gif

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) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential or possible operator
Kuwait signed a contract for Orkan M-87 and there is more such entries in many thousands of Wikipedia articles that have in some place mentioned something about potential or possible operators. For example of such articles and mentions of potential operators see McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and if you search more you will found more similar articles. As such a thing - operators - be it current, former or possible-potential any time in past or present tense is part of history or some current state connected with article substance - here about Orkan M-87 - it should be mentioned. Loesorion (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the article you linked here. In it potential but not-to-be operators from the past are not in "Operators" section but in "Operational history" section, most of them mentioned in one sentence. If you want to put Kuwait here, put it in section "History" next to Iraq. It does not belong in "Operators" section. As for Tamnava, I see no reason why it's being mentioned here, it's a separate project and sources provided for Tamnava do not mention Orkan in any way. Илија Гуск (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted for that data to be in history section why just not put it there, you delete in same time usual wiki "potential operators" and more content that has nothing to do with it, while "Tamanava" is name for new launcher it uses same rockets designed for modernized Orkan. Former operators on same page are not under operational history yet you don't delete that, in end why delete anything if you can reorganize article. I will put all potential and former operators under operational history but that does not change anything written in context that is clearly explained so people could understand without such chapter name that it is obviously part of history. Loesorion (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

By my understanding operation history is when something was used in war and that should be not confused with procurement and use in peace, I have edited page to get some consensus with editor Илија Гуск to put potential and former operators in operational history but I think right place for potential operators and former operators is not under that chapter. And if somewhere else is done the same it does not make it good and right to be done in such way. And please explain to me why in thousands of other wiki pages potential operators are put in such fashion at bottom of page usually after or before operators and here on this page they should be in section history, Thx. Loesorion (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you are all over the place, I'll try to be the coherent one. 1.You provided link of F/A-18 Hornet and I used that link as example why YOU should put it in history section, because it is YOU who wants to edit that in. 2.If Tamnava is a new launcher than it's not Orkan, is it? 3.There is difference between former operator (they had it and they used it) and former potential operators (never had it and never will). 4.Operational history does not mean only used in war, your understanding is wrong. 5.You get consensus here first after talking to me or anyone else, after that you can edit. 6.What and why is not good and right? You lost me there. 7.POTENTIAL former operators and for my argument I used the same article you provided as example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Илија Гуск (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And don't vandalize my user page. Илија Гуск (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your page was not vandalized intentionally. You got fair warning not to engage in editors war because I do not want you to have problems with editing rules here and you deleted that fair warning, now I have placed it on your Talk page I hope it is ok now. I don't want to put potential operators in history section - you proposed that "If you want to put Kuwait here, put it in section "History" next to Iraq.". As compromise I put it on "Operational history and procurement" section. Why does not Kuwait belong to potential operators - section for itself under operators or under " Operational history and procurement" section or in same level as other sections/chapters - explain - what is criteria for proper sections/chapters and how past/history influences that there can not be such section in "Operators" or "Operational history and procurement" followed with proper explanation? Why you did not created section with proper name if you think that is a problem but just deleted all? "Tamnava" is new launcher that uses Orkan rocket 267mm as stated in source why not to mention it here? That does not prevent "Tamnava" it to have its own page on Wikipedia.

Again it is easy to delete and hard to make content, why you have not tried to improve article first and still not trying but you just delete again and again without proper reason?

You also should get consensus you talk about now here but you have not cared for consensus before while deleting and after you have been warned by me you come here. That is difference between us lets make it clear. What is operational history - please enlighten me, for me to be more precise then first time when I was in hurry to write short hoping you will understand some shorter explanation without some broader writing - it is use of some of military equipment by units in war or in peace time in some exercise, for you is what something different or we agree on that?

I have provided one source - one article of thousands as I stated that has "potential operators" section in article while I did not claim that I think given example is properly placed in given article just it is mentioned and that could exist in article - you denied existing of section by deleting all and not by first talking here and you have not tried improving article - it does not meter in what subcategories of article belong section if it is reliable, subcategories could always bee improved or arranged differently in any article to improve it and give to readers better understanding of context.

If you want to further discuss "Tamnava" as that was not your reason stated for first deletion - as I mentioned that you have delete altogether first and second time because of "operators" before coming here - I will open separate talk about "Tamnava" in order not to mix things here.

As I said before THOUSANDS similar examples exists in Wikipedia about putting operators, customers, possible sales in some form in separate sections/chapters or under some categories - have you searched any other article to have more example about what we are talking here?

Here comes more examples: and list goes on....
 * Mikoyan MiG-29 has "Potential operators" in "Operational history" section of article
 * KAI T-50 Golden Eagle has "Possible sales" in "Operational history" section of article
 * Hongdu L-15 has "Potential customers" section
 * Yakovlev Yak-130 has "Orders and deliveries" section
 * Sukhoi Su-33 has "Failed bids" under "Operational history" section of article
 * Sukhoi Su-35 has "Potential operators" and "Failed bids" in "Operational history" section of article
 * M1 Abrams has "Potential operators" section under "Operators" similar as I have done here and that is ok there but not here?

For me "Failed bids", "Potential operators", "Potential customers" and similar does not belong into Operational history since that is all about possible purchase and has nothing to do with use of equipment. All that mentioned here does not change that many articles have it in different ways similar context about putting potential operators and while I don't agree with such placement of "potential operators" in articles "operational history" - section, I state here in this article that Kuwait was potential operator of M-87 Orkan that even signed contract about it and should fall under such section - "Potential or possible operators" under Operators or in same level as Operators section of article or some other similarly named section like "Operational history and procurement" as I have used it second time and you deleted again etc.Loesorion (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tamnava - new Orkan
Tamnava rocket launcher is new modular model of launcher that uses among others modern rocket 267mm developed for modernized Orkan as stated in source. New launcher is now called Tamnava previously version in development was known as Orkan CER and Dominator. It should be mentioned here as it shows Orkan versions development during timeline - that not prevents it from having its own page on Wikipedia.Loesorion (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)