Talk:AS-90

What does "ERA" mean in this context?
What does "ERA" mean in this context? The current list on the disambiguation page do not seem to apply. RedWolf 02:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

acronymfinder.com seems to have the best guess of "Extended Range Ammunition" or "Extended Range Artillery". ugen64 02:13, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Often also known as 'Base Bleed' Ammunition. Rob cowie 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The correct name for the program was 'ERA/ERO', meaning Extended Range Ammunition/Extended Rage Ordnance Nfe 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In service with the Yanks?
Isn't this weapon in service with the Yanks as propelled weapons were built in 2005 at BAE Telford for the US Army. King Konger


 * It's not in US service Chwyatt 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature
It's missing. AS90 has to have a FV number, and land-service numbers for the complete equipment (eg something around L125) and ordnance (eg something around L27).

There's also the matter of the auxiliary engine. Nfe 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Howitzer 155mm L131 Self Propelled (AS90) is the Guns full designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.173.207 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why delete picture?
It is of an AS-90 and comes from the UK MoD Defence Image Library and hence is in the public domain. What's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs)


 * The problem is that the image is copyrighted and using it here infringes that copyright. Because the copyright is owned by a department of the British government does not mean that it is public domain, in fact as I remember it means that it is copyrighted for 50 more years. It is the US government that releases all their images into the public domain - this does not apply to most other countries.--Konstable 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a bit more study on intellectual property law, notably that of UK and what copyright actually means. The purpose of copyright is to give the owner control over their property, these property rights can be transferred in their entirety or in part. MoD's terms and conditions for use of their images are at http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/terms.fwx

This explicitly grants the right of non-commercial use. This means that if you use an image in something you produce for sale then you must pay a licence fee. However, if you are not using it to turn a buck then you can use it free of charge. Wikipedia is not a commercial operation (unless someone's being very naughty and telling porkies).

Every work has copyright attached to it. Copyright means the copyright owner has can grant whatever rights they choose to other parties. For example my words here are copyright to me but I have granted free publication rights to Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia decided to become a commercial operation then I would revoke my waivure and take approprate legal action if Wikipedia did not remove my work (or paid me lots). MoD waives their copyright so long as someone else doesn't try and make a buck from it, then they take the entirely reasonable view that the UK taxpayer should get a fraction of this buck. A commercial purpose does of course include such things as BAE, the producer of AS-90, using MoD's image in their promotional material (although I suspect BAE pay a lump sum and can use whatever they want).

If Wikipedia wanted to be doubly sure then they could approach MoD for confirmation that publication on Wikipedia does not constitute a commercial purpose. If MoD states that they consider Wikepdia to be commercial then the options are to either remove all MoD copyright images or argue the toss in court. Has Wikipedia approached MoD for confirmation and have they said Wikipedia is commercial?

The reality is that MoD publishes their images so that they get publicity, that's what they want. They just object to people making money out of their work and not giving them a share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry I did not write this policy, but Wikipedia is strict on images - they must be able to be re-used commercially as well (see WP:NONFREE). While Wikipedia itself does not make money off them (or at least claims not to, they still get millions in donations) the goal of this project is to also allow our content to be re-usable even in commercial settings (such as the WP:V1.0 project or maybe producing printed copies). And as the copyright tag currently used on the image says, someone did in fact already ask the branch of UK government that handles copyrights for permissions to use their content and they refused. This is not my individual decision to remove the image, it is the wishes of the copyright owner not to have these images here due to Wikipedia's licensing policies.--Konstable 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably best just to leave the pictures there, no ill would ever come of it, plus by deleting the picture you adversely impact the quality of the article and Wikipedia. A picture speaks a thousand words and unless you want to add a detailed visually descriptive paragraph it's probably better for everyone if you just quit deleting pics. (Sapperhutch (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Obviously you completely ignored the previous posting about Wiki policy.
 * 2603:6080:21F0:7880:6CA3:8805:72AB:6B1C (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Regiment of Artillery
I have changed certain wording to better reflect the actuall relationship between the Royal Horse Artillery and the Royal Artillery - both are parts of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. I know this may seem like mere semantics and hair-splitting and I couldn't care less. Darth Doctrinus 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical terms should be explained
"...uses a conforming 39 calibre barrel which fires the L15 unassisted projectile out to a range of 24.7 km. However, this was a new design of ordnance and uses a split sliding block breech with Crossley obturation, instead of the more usual screw breech...". Technojargon like conforming, split sliding block, Crossley obturation needs to be explained for the lay reader, otherwise it may be meaningless. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/as90/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on AS-90. 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/20071211233430/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ArmyToGetNewPrecisionsearchAndDestroyAntiarmourWeapon.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ArmyToGetNewPrecisionsearchAndDestroyAntiarmourWeapon.htm

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) 09:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

were these ever used in combat?
Iraq, perhaps? -HammerFilmFan 2603:6080:21F0:7880:6CA3:8805:72AB:6B1C (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

firing rate
I was under the impression that firing rate was limited due to heat dissipation; stuff needs time to cool down, but "...2 per minute for 60 minutes" is pretty remarkable, does it really need 30 seconds to cool down after each shot, and actually, what is being called down? Is it the barrel or that and something else? Or is the whole process more complex than just heat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.37.98 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)