Open main menu



In the article it says:

The Iraqi modifications increased both range and inaccuracy.

Do we mean this did or did not accuracy increase?

read the rest of the article again, and you'll know that INaccuracy increased indeed. When I first read this, I found this a hilarious way of expressing things, although arguably not the most clear....

Someone stated "This article should be merged with R-1 rocket". I dis-agree, even this page says the SS-1 was based upon lessons learned from the R-1 program. Why should they be merged?

I agree with the last post here. I see no reason this page should be merged with R-1 rocket has removed Bulgaria from the list of countries possessing Scuds. I have reverted that since as far as I can tell they still had them recently. Is there any evidence to the contrary? --xyzzy_n 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

War of Two cities referenceEdit

In the article it is stated: "in response to Iranian missile strikes against Baghdad, in response Iraq fired 190 Scud missiles at Iranian cities including Tehran"

However the article on the Iran-Iraq War has no mention of this; is it possible to verify this fact - if true, thenthe Iran Iraq War article should be updated and a reference provided; if not this article should be updated. Lee.cook 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of missile bombing in that article. Anyway, I’ve added a reference; it’s far from perfect (talking only about Tehran and 160 missiles), but at least it documents something quite similar to what the article claims. I’ll defer finding a better reference to the experts. —xyzzyn 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed Pennsylvania Nationol Guard Barracks to United States Army Barracks. It was not a national guard barracks and the soliders were Army Reservists not Guardsmen, from Pennsylvania-- 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Patriot missileEdit

Critics are correct in saying the Patriot missiles didn't hit Scud missiles during the Gulf War. That version of the Patriot was NOT designed as a hit to kill weapon but was a proximity kill anti-aircraft missile modified for defeating short to medium range ballistic missiles. The shrapnel and shockwave caused damage to the Scuds which made them break apart in flight. The US barracks was hit by a Scud that more than one Patriot battery obtained a radar lock on, but due to confusion over which battery had priority, none fired and the Scud hit its target. Patriot operations were then changed so that all batteries that obtained a lock on a Scud could fire independently.

Newer variants of the Patriot are hit to kill designs and performed well VS the Scuds launched by Iraq in 2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


In view of Wikipeda's current policy on Trivia and x in Popular Culture-type sections, I'm not sure any mention of an Australian tennis player is warranted here, irrespective of how he may have acquired his nickname.

In fact, I would propose deleting this Trivia section outright. – Adammgriggs 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf War (disam)Edit

I am disambiguating links for Persian Gulf War. The section Scud#Operational_use uses the link to Persian Gulf War, but I cannot tell which Persian Gulf War it refers to. Please fix this link, or tell me which war it refers to and I can fix the link myself. Thank you. Macduffman (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

An IP changed all instances of "Gulf war" to "Persian gulf war". For clarity and consistency, i reverted that edit. All references are to the Gulf War. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Macduffman (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan dose not use ScudsEdit

Pakistan has never used Scuds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talkcontribs) 06:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


This article mentions chugging, but doesn't explain what it means. It is a technical term for bad behavior of rockets? wiktionary refers to things like the noises made by a labouring engine, but it is not clear why exactly that is bad for rockets. It would probably be best to have a definition of the term or use a different expression. Tweisbach (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah already addedEdit

[1] and the scuds were given to Hezbollah, not the Lebanese military. [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Scud Attacks" sectionEdit

The "Scud Attacks" section is disorganized and too focused around a single Patriot missile timing issue. Most of it is a quotation from an original research paper. Can we trim this section to focus on scud attacks and just mention the Patriot missile event? (Community editor (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

Why was it named Scud?Edit

The article right now says that NATO named it Scud, but doesn't explain how they came up with that word. Was it just a random combination of letters? (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a Scud disambiguation page with a bunch of "Scuds" that probably predate the missile, I'm guessing it was probably named after the shrimp-like creature. But speaking of which, why is this article named "Scud"? There's a whole bunch of articles on Russian missiles that use their Russian names rather than their NATO codenames (for example, "R-73" rather than "AA-11 Archer"). —Masterblooregard (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Vietnam a current operator or a former operator?Edit

Vietnam is currently listed as a current operator and a former operator of Scuds. I would change this myself but the Internet Archive (from which the data is sourced) is switching between undergoing maintenance and presenting a 504 error.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scud. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2017Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved.(non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ScudScud (missile family) – There are multiple rockets under the reporting name 'Scud,' so this is WP:COMMONNAME but I think fails the precision requirement as it does not refer to a single missile but a family/series of sometimes quite disparate models/variants. A Scud could refer to an R-11, R-17, Hwasong-6, Qiam-1, etc, and Scuds could refer to multiple R-11, R-17, Hwasong-6, Qiam-1 or all versions of the Scud family. The Redstone articles are arranged a similar way, with Redstone (rocket family) describing the versions, relationships, and a brief usage, then individual pages for the PGM-11 Redstone, Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle, and Jupiter-C. A counter-example however is the Agni (missile) which then uses Agni I, Agni II, etc. for more precision. Kivaan (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried moving the page once since the documentation was unclear on the need for discussion, and am still trying something new with all this...hopefully I've hit the proper method this time. Kivaan (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – I might agree that the missile family is not primarytopic for Scud, but I'd rather see the more common natural disambig Scud missile used as title, even though it's a family. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No other obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that would merit a disambiguation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The missiles are the clear primary topic and this article is the best one to have that single name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map with Scud operators in blue and former operators in redEdit

On the map, Western Germany is coloured red, but to the best of my knowledge they never operated Scuds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Scud" page.