Talk:List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army

Bangladesh Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh 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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Military history: Asian / South Asia

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Archives

Archive 1

References in use[edit]

I've just rolled back a series of edits sourcing details to some 'equipment of Bangladesh Army' site. Given the unreliability of many of the edits made to this page, it's better to stick with SIPRI and/or IISS. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop users who are adding false information without any reference.[edit]

Some users including Dibosh Chakama (also with his fake accounts) are trying to add wrong information based on their imagination and on false facebook posts. They are also following unreliable online portals like bdmilitary (present name defseca). Defseca provides false information about procurement most of the time. Dibosh Chakama also trying to increase the actual quality of many equipment. He uploaded many stolen images from other websites which is against copyright rules. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafsunk: is a another fake account of Dibosh Chakma. He again trying to add false information without any reference. He upload stolen images from other websites which breaks copyright rules. He also placed images in table without fixing the image resolution which is harmful for web version. Please stop Rafsung (Dibosh Chakma), We need help from you @Oshwah: @EdJohnston: @SRS 00: @Emdad Tafsir:.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that Rafsunk is a sock of Dibosh Chakma (talk · contribs). If you think you see copyright violations or the use of unreliable sources, please link to some examples. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain rigorous source-text integrity[edit]

@AzfarShams:

How do you arrive at an upper limit of 647 BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers in this edit.

The Military Balance states "APC (W) 330 BTR-80", which is the source of the lower limit, 330. SIPRI reports 645 (14+78+60+80+73+340) BTR-80. One transfer says, "Incl. ambulance and ARV versions", but it doesn't say how many, another says, "Including 10 ARV version". Wikipedia lists those 10 in a separate row in the "Engineering vehicles" section, so to avoid double counting, those 10 should be deducted here, which would leave an upper limit of 635.

Your edit adds https://www.unroca.org/ as a source. UNROCA's top level summary shows Bangladesh reported 265 armoured combat vehicles imported from Russia, and Russia reported 817 armoured combat vehicles exported to Bangladesh. Bangladesh identifies only 198 (39+39+60+60) of the 265 as BTR-80s. Russia doesn't identify the type at all. For half of the transfer years, Bangladesh hasn't reported, and in the remaining years, the two country's numbers match only once. With so much information missing, and UNROCA doing no editorial analysis of the inconsistent, primary source, voluntary reports, I question how useful this source is. It does not, in any case, support an upper limit of 647.

It is inappropriate to move "It is used by Bangladesh in UN peacekeeping operations" to after the inline citations and add {{citation needed}} there. SIPRI states "financed by UN", "for use by Bangladeshi UN peacekeeping forces", and "incl for UN peacekeeping operations" with respect to several of the largest BTR-80 transfers. Other sources phrase it as delivered "to UN peacekeepers in Bangladesh",[1][2], but primary source news reports should be avoided when secondary sources are available, and that wording is open to misinterpretation as troops from a third country keeping the peace in Bangladesh. It's true that "[intended] for" doesn't always mean "used for", but is that really in question?[3][4] Come up with a better paraphrase of SIPRI if you can, but let's not add any more sources to this row.

How does this edit to the SLC-2 radar row improve the page? The source you added mentions "two weapon-locating radars from China", but not specifically the SLC-2. China manufactures other counter-battery radars, such as the Type 704 Radar.

If the regular contributors here are ever going to break the cycle of: cleanup, new editors trash article, cleanup, new editors trash article, ..., we need to stick to the highest quality sources, carefully summarize what they say without changing their meaning or implication, and not make unnecessary edits that burden watchers. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maintain rigorous source-text integrity[edit]

@Worldbruce:, I understand your reasoning. This page has been vandalized multiple times recently (and also more in previous times), which made trusting other editors very difficult. I apologize if any of my edits cause any problem. I was trying to recover the old data before the page was vandalized. I will do my best to avoid unnecessary edits. I do have a question. Can photographic evidence(Not Copyrighted Image of course) work as a citation? For example, about the SLC-2 radar, although no reliable sources cannot be found that described procurement of this thing there are images captured by photographers where we can see that radar along with a banner with a description saying what the thing is, further clearing the confusion. Again I apologize if the question is inappropriate. Thank you.-- AzfarShams (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AzfarShams: With a photograph of a sign, what one cites is the sign, not the photo per se. This arises with historical plaques, museum signage, gravestones, and the like. Template {{Cite sign}} can be used, but I advise against citing the sign in this case. It's a primary source, ephemeral, and doesn't actually support the statement being made. You may be confident that the sign was published by the Bangladesh Army, hung on a vehicle belonging to them, and was there during a Victory Day parade in Dhaka, but that's all interpretation of the photograph, and such original research is not allowed. A better source must exist. If not, one has to question whether listing the SLC-2 here gives it undue weight. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Thank You. Your advice will be helpful. -- AzfarShams (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:, hope I didn't bother you. While researching about procurement of a sound ranging system, I came across this page, [5]. Can this article(presumably) be used as a reliable source (especially for SLC-2)? If so, which template should be used? I wanted to clarify before taking further steps. Thank You.-- AzfarShams (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AzfarShams: Strictly speaking, it's a reliable source that the Bangladesh Army published a training manual for the SLC-2 sometime after 16 November 2016. They are unlikely to have done that unless they had at least one SLC-2 at the time, but it isn't conclusive proof that they have one or more now. Pilots, for example, are routinely trained in simulators for a new model aircraft before an organization receives delivery of the aircraft. And I know of at least one case where three countries received small numbers of a weapons system for the duration of a joint operation (UN peacekeeping, I think) but only one of them kept the system after the operation. Don't rely only on my opinion. If you think it's a good source, ask at WP:RSN if it's reliable for the statement you want to make.

The other thing to keep in mind is that combining one source about Bangladesh and the SLC-2 weapon locating radar, with another that says Bangladesh has 2 weapon locating radars, to produce the statement that "Bangladesh has 2 SLC-2 weapon locating radars" is classic WP:OR - combining material from two sources to say something not explicitly stated by either of them. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Image for Type 93 mortar[edit]

The image which claimed to be of Type 93(also known as PP93) mortar doesn't match the description of its catalog.^[1] Instead of Type 93, the mortar in that image matches the description of M2 mortar. Also, I couldn't find any non-copyrighted image of Type 93 mortar on the internet. For now, I'm removing the image. Thank You. - AzfarShams (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image which claimed to be Type-93 mortar on the far right.
An image of M2 mortar. Which also has a Chinese variant named Type 31(Later modified Type 63)

References

^ "Mortar Model PP93". www.cjae.com. CHINA JING AN IMPORT & EXPORT CORP. 2018. Retrieved 27 January 2021.

Mortars: Why a row for Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1?[edit]

@AzfarShams: after I removed them in January, you restored the image of and link to the Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1, piped as "Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50", in this edit. The target article doesn't contain any information about the MO-120 AM-50; it is about a different mortar, the MO-120 RT.^[1] The photo and link are thus inaccurate and unhelpful.

The two cited sources say respectively that Bangladesh has 95 "MO-120-AM-50 M67/UBM 52" and "AM-50/UBM 52" 120mm mortars. The UBM 52 is the Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50 built under license in Yugoslavia. The sources' use of the slash separator suggests that the exact mix by place of manufacture (France/Yugoslavia) is unknown and irrelevant. (For all the other countries that use one or the other - India, Indonesia, and Pakistan - the source unambiguously specifies which one).

If no one can justify why the Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1 should be pictured and linked, I will remove them again, leaving a single row for the 95 mortars. For clarity I will pipe the UBM 52 link to say AM-50/UBM 52, like the sources, and describe the origin as France/Yugoslavia. I also will remove the verbose second sentence in the notes section, which doesn't convey anything beyond what will be in the row. The citations are sufficient, there's no reason for inline attribution. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Title unknown". Interavia. Vol. 22. 1967. p. 1154.

@Worldbruce: At first thank you for, pointing out a great mistake of mixing up Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50 with MO-120 RT which is actually the successor of MO-120 RT. As both citations stated that Bangladesh has 95 "MO-120-AM-50 M67/UBM 52" and "AM-50/UBM 52" 120mm mortars and didn't mention how many bought from which country or which variant. So, for clarity's sake, I decided to keep both of them separate row. Also let you know that, an article of MO-120-AM-50 is requested in WikiProject Military history. Although UBM 52 is a Yugoslavian variant of MO-120-AM-50. But both are still different models as Type 56 assault rifle and AK-47 are different. So I personally think both deserve separate rows as I said again, both sources didn't mention how many bought from which country or which variant. As you said, I am removing the link to the Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1, which was piped as "Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50". I will remove/replace the image with a non-copyrighted image of that mortar if I find any. I will remove the second sentence which also seems unnecessary to me. I added that sentence because it was difficult to assume good faith, if you know the history of this article. Again, thank you for your consideration.-- AzfarShams (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are both same ?

An image of AK-47, an assault rifle developed in the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II.
An image of Type 56 assault rifle, a variant of the Soviet-designed AK-47 (specifically Type 3) and AKM rifles.

Please do not let anyone to add more then 174 Type 59 Durjoy tanks.[edit]

Please do not add any information which is related to "300 more" Type 59 Durjoy tanks and theoretical "Durjoy MK2" variant. These rumors are spread by web portal "bdmilitary" (present name "defseca") which already flagged as unreliable source. These rumors then spread by Facebook and amateur Youtube channels. There is not a single reliable reference available for them. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this article from misinformation, vandalism and table breaking in web version[edit]

Either one person or a group of people continue to damage this article with misinformation, vandalism and table breaking in web version. I’m tired of fighting them. I urge moderators and experienced editors to maintain accurate information and table format in this article. Thank you in advance. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive sock puppetry since 8 May[edit]

@Eurohunter, Khandaans, Mehedi099, and Nafis Fuad Ayon: It should come as no surprise that অগ্নিশিখা is a block evading sockpuppet of Dibosh Chakma. They have been blocked indefinitely. Of their 27 article space edits outside of List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army and Bangladesh Air Force, all have been reverted except 4-5 which were actually helpful.

If there is no objection within the next 48 hours, I will begin cleaning up the mess that অগ্নিশিখা made here. The work will take several hours. It may involve temporarily reverting edits you've made during অগ্নিশিখা's sockpuppetry, but when I'm done my intention is that all your contributions unrelated to the sockpuppetry will be preserved. I would ask that you not edit the article while the cleanup is in progress. If you aren't willing for the article to be in flux for a few hours, or don't trust me to get your edits right in the end, then we'll need to attack the cleanup in a different way. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Mehedi099 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added some photos of some armaments used by Bangladesh army,Can you check them and tell if they are acceptable.And if there are any casualty with any photo please let me know,i will update them according to the rules and regulations Mehedi099 (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice[edit]

Because of the extensive and persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material, an editnotice has been added to this article. It reminds all editors to cite reliable sources, and cautions them of the dangers of self-published sources and primary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment used by Bangladesh army[edit]

Moved from User talk:Worldbruce

– This is not a personal matter between two editors, but about how to improve this article. Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: You jsut removed many equipment used by bd army which are actually correct.Like the army uses kriss vector gen 2 and pt pindad and styerr aug.Please re add the correct equipment Mehedi099 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi099: Accuracy and completeness are desirable properties in articles, but verifiability is mandatory. It is one of the pillars of the encyclopedia. What that means is that even if you have personal knowledge that something is true, you aren't allowed to add it to the encyclopedia without citing a reliable published source that says so. In short, what matters is verifiability, not truth. Some things cannot be included in Wikipedia, even though that may mean omitting something you feel is important.

Specifically:

KRISS Vector (Gen II variant): The source cited for this was [6]. Picuki.com is an Instagram editor and viewer. It exerts no editorial oversight and has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking. It is not a reliable source. The same is true for Instagram, which is a self-published, primary source (see WP:INSTAGRAM). The photo shared on Instagram is watermarked "Defseca.com". Defseca is not a reliable source either, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#defseca.com.
Pindad SS2 (piped as SS2 V5): The source cited for this was [7]. Military-today.com is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Military Today.
Steyr AUG: The source cited for this was [8]. The Bonn International Center for Conversion is a reputable organization, but this particular report states, on page 61, that Wikipedia is one of it's sources. WP:CIRCULAR says not to use publications that rely on material from Wikipedia. They are not reliable sources because Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Even if the report were reliable, it does not support the statement that the Steyr AUG is equipment of the Bangladesh Army. All it says is that the weapon is held by one or more Bangladesh government agencies. The army is a government agency, but so are the navy, air force, coast guard, Rapid Action Battalion, Border Guard Bangladesh, Ansar, Village Defence Party, prison service, various schools and training centres, etc. Does the report prove that the VDP is equipped with the Steyr AUG? Of course not, and it doesn't prove the Bangladesh Army is either.

Anyone who adds these weapons with unreliable sources, or no sources at all, will be reverted. The vast majority of websites are not reliable sources, they have no impartial editorial review to evaluate the accuracy of information, and are self-published or published by businesses or organizations that want you to believe their point of view.

Another thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We should give aspects of a topic due weight. Articles should not give minority aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely supported aspects. There are only a handful of reliable secondary sources about the equipment of the Bangladesh Army as a whole. The Military Balance (IISS) writes that "small arms, machine guns, grenades and grenade launchers and unguided man-portable anti-armour and support weapons have proliferated so much and are sufficiently easy to manufacture or copy that listing them would be impractical". SIPRI doesn't track light weapons either. If reliable secondary sources don't say what models of pistols, rifles, machine guns, and grenades the army has, then that information may be as irrelevant as what brand of soap or bootlaces the army buys. It may be that all Wikipedia should say here about small arms is that, "The Bangladesh Army has pistols, rifles, machine guns, and grenades". --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add the gears used by the army in the soldier gear and equipment section Mehedi099 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and accurate vs. verifiable[edit]

Edit summaries are good for explaining edits, but are poorly suited to discussion and reaching consensus. Khandaans' summaries from these edits raise points that are worth discussing, so I've copied them here:

A large number of equipment BA uses were removed and under-quantified in last few edits due to lack of reliable sources. It must be understood the BA is not as transparent or many other countries when it comes to defense purchase, so it is not necessary that there will be media disclosure for everything Army uses. Also, something not listed on SIPRI doesn't necessarily mean BA doesn't operate the equipment. Many of Army equipment are purchased through government to government deal.
For example, Bangladesh Army displayed Dongfeng vehicles as its command vehicle during last year's military parade. There are photographic evidence of many other equipment such as BTR-70 operated by BA UN peacekeeping force. What can be better source than Bangladesh Army itself displaying the equipment at its own parade? While it is understandable that a standard for Wikipedia publishing must be maintained, at the same time, in the process, the accurate picture is being neglected.

Completeness[edit]

SIPRI includes government to government deals. The Al-Yamamah arms deal is an example.[9] (Choose supplier United Kingdom, recipient Saudi Arabia, year range 1985-2020, and weapon systems Aircraft) SIPRI may not identify them as G2G deals, and it's always possible that they miss some, but I've seen nothing in their sources and methods,[10] or in third-party analysis of their work, to suggest that SIPRI ever intentionally excludes any deals because they are G2G.

It's true that not being on SIPRI doesn't necessarily mean BA doesn't operate the equipment. SIPRI intentionally excludes some systems, such as small arms and light weapons, captured weapons, vehicles with very light armor, weapons supplied for evaluation purposes, and weapons on short term loan (I don't know of any examples involving BA, but vehicles for UN Missions or joint exercises are occasionally lent). If SIPRI and other secondary and tertiary sources intentionally exclude something, Wikipedia should too, that's what it means to give due weight to different aspects of a topic.

Reliable secondary sources[edit]

"What can be a better source than Bangladesh Army itself displaying the equipment at its own parade?" The answer, of course, is a reliable, secondary source. Photographs and videos of a parade are primary sources. The bulk of any article is supposed to be based on secondary sources. There are numerous difficulties with primary sources. Eric H. Larson, the editor of Camopedia, notes some of the problems:

In conducting research one must always apply careful principles of discrimination to verify that the particular caption or identifying text is accurate ... even military news agencies have been known to make mistakes, and one should always examine the details of a photograph to ensure they do not contradict the identification provided for it. In cases where the national or unit affiliation of combatants in a photograph cannot be verified, the photograph should not be relied upon as a piece of documentation simply based on inexpert hearsay. ... photographs taken of a unit on parade on the same day indicate only that this unit wore a particular style of camouflage on that specific day; they give no indication whether usage continued before or afterwards with any degree of consistency.[11]

SIPRI, which also uses primary sources, notes that "Sources often provide only partial information, and substantial disagreement between them is common ... Exercising judgement and making informed cautious estimates are therefore important elements in compiling the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. "

Wikipedians should evaluate the reliability of sources, and should use common sense. We may use primary sources to make straightforward statements that don't require specialist knowledge, but are not allowed to do the sort of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis that secondary sources like SIPRI do, because that would be original research, which is not allowed here.

The BTR-70 is a good example of why photographs are often terrible sources. Below are two photos by the same photographer, purportedly of two models of APC taken about six weeks apart. It's really hard to tell them apart, isn't it? Even the crews look identical! Is the one on the left proof that BA currently has 55 BTR-70s in inventory? That's what the article claimed before I removed it, but none of the three sources cited even mention the BTR-70.

BTR-70 of Bangladesh Army
BTR-80 of Bangladesh Army

Accuracy[edit]

Accuracy is a desirable property, but verifiability is mandatory. It is essential that Wikipedia accurately reflect reliable sources (there has to be source-text integrity). Our readers must be able to check that all information in our article is based on reliable published source and not just made up. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong information[edit]

Many equipments have been removed by some stupids. Tanvir Ahmed Siddiqi (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BD 08 assault rifle photo discussion[edit]

Mehedi 99 is using copyright violated photo. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photos I am using are official and they have better resolution. Some might say why do you need to put soldiers on the phone, well my answer is people are not stupid. They can clearly see the difference.

Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

photo Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Hasan Israr: You have presented zero evidence that File:Bd-08 assault rifle.png is copyrighted. If you have any, use it to request deletion from Wikimedia Commons instead of edit warring here. As an illustration of the BD-08, File:‘Aurora Monsoon’ 140824-A-ZX807-504.jpg fails MOS:PERTINENCE and MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. It should not be used in this context. Leaving the image column blank is preferable to using the image you keep inserting. You have yet to give any reason for reverting the other dozen or so changes in the same edit. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest??? Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided all the informations with proper references. References explain everything which is why I have not said anything. Besides there are some other defence freaks who know nothing about proper information Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article be reverted to the last good version, before Mehedi Hasan Israr began to edit it. Pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dibosh Chakma, Mehedi Hasan Israr may seek consensus here for any changes they believe should be made. @Mehedi099, Nafis Fuad Ayon, and Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa: Do recent contributors have any thoughts? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the previous position might not be a good idea. Because all of the informations added in the page are provided with relevant official references. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehedi Hasan Israr Which official sources for all information?Most of the sources are old and not official.Most of your information are biased. And what about deleting others edit without any debate and adding videos in image table?Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't comment like a stupid. Weapons are not groceries that army will buy them everyday. Bangladesh Army's most of the artillery weapons are old. It's a bitter truth. That's why reference are old but official. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa, Who said that videos can't be added on the page. There are no rules that state, videos can't be added. Besides, most of the information is removed for some useless editors like you. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehedi Hasan IsrarWhat are you talking about?"Don't comment like a sstupid"!Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking about facts. You are the ones who's been disturbing me. Why don't you just focus on your battleships and let me complete my work peacefully. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehedi Hasan IsrarWhy are you talking me like this?How can you tell me useless and stupid!Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehedi Hasan Israr Because I am also a Bangladeshi.Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are both editors, we are not here to make love with others. So we must work together to take this page to a better place. I joined couple of days ago and you joined months ago. If you had done your job properly then I wouldn't have joined. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the valuable informations of this page were removed due to some lack of of proper references. And I am reading those references with proper information. Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa, Let me clarify something about unknown large calibre artillery. If you look at my references you will clearly see that in 1998 Bangladesh army received 108 units of unknown large calibre artillery from North Macedonia.

Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I have no opinion here. I have spent a lot of time in this article and I am tired. I am currently working on articles related to Bangladesh Navy and Turkish weaponry.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Loong II[edit]

Mehedi Hasan Israr (talk · contribs)No citation available for Wing Loong II from SIPRI,Flight Global,Bangladesh Army or any other source.Citation is the EurAsian Times Desk,this report is likely to be inaccurate.EurAsian Times also not providing any details about this.Provide us more citation that Bangladesh Army operates CAIG Wing Loong II.Or I will remove Wing Loong II from the list.I hope you all agree with meWorldbruce (talk · contribs),Mehedi099 (talk · contribs).Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]