Talk:P-15 Termit

Untitled
About my interest for this missile, i must say two things. One, it's that it look quite impressive. Powerful and funny weapon with its triangular tail surfaces and delta wings. A classical for anti-ship design.

Another is the potential as land attack missile,expecially with China and Taiwan tension. The complete analysis is to this page: []--Stefanomencarelli 23:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Umph. I screwed up.
I had re-written most of this article, editing for proper English and ease of reading, and correcting the many spelling and context errors as well as clarifying the facts. Unfortunately, I **LOST** it all because I failed to save before my browser clicked onto another page! I don't have the wherewithal to try again right now, but I did extensively rewrite the last three paragraphs, re-headed under "Operational Use". Yes, I did look up the Battle of Dong Hoi! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.240.121 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Acronym
"The warhead itself was a 500 kg hollow charge (HEAT), larger than the SAP typical of anti-ship missiles." This sentence appears in the 'Design' section, para 5. What does "SAP" stand for? RASAM (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Armor Piercing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Versions
Is there any sources whatsoever about the versions P-20, P-20L, P-21 and P-22? I believe they are bogus. They are not mentioned in the ruwp artikle and this source indicates that P-20 and P-22 are much larger, ramjet-powered cruise-missiles totally unrelated to the P-15 Termite. /83.227.130.26 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

P-20L, P-21 and P-22 apparently existed only as paper designs and were abandoned as a very early stage. The P-20 designation was apparently reused for the developed P-15 after the large ramjet missile was abandoned. I've deleted reference to the first three.

Versions issues
The versions list appears incomplete. The main body text refers to a P-15U which is not mentioned, and the version text refers to the P-20M as a modification of the P-20L, which is also missing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this missile cataloged by it's NATO reporting name and not by its original user name (P-15 Termit) ?
Alternatively, why isn't it cataloged by its GRAU index ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.114.112 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I believed that WP:COMMONNAME should be enforced - "P-15 Termit" is WP:JARGON, whereas "SS-N-2 Styx" is the common name in English. However there is disagreement on that and I am in the process of moving them back. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on P-15 Termit. 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.btinternet.com/~david.Manley/naval/Bulldogs/AIW_Campaign.pdf

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 23:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Silkworm use in the 1991 Gulf War
Greetings,

I noticed under the "operational usage" section, there's mention both of the Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War....however, the missile mentioned in these paragraphs is the silkworm. While the Silkworm was developed from the P-15, I think they're different enough where operational usage of the Silkworm shouldn't be covered in this article (Note that these two conflicts are also covered in the Silkworm's article). I'm proposing deleting the paragraphs related to these two conflicts, since they're also covered in the Silkworm article...any thoughts/objections? Skyraider1 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)