Talk:M8 (rocket)

operational use content lacking
Eg Article says used from air, but no mention of air operations in section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That frustrated me while I was writing the article, but despite the large number built these rockets are annoyingly obscure in the reference department. Guess they just aren't sexy enough compared to Me 262s and such. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some technical stuff in the TMs - eg gives description of differences between M8 and M8A2, fuzing and a lot on the launchers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger - thanks for writing this article. I have done a lot of research on WW2, somewhat on munitions,, more on social aspects, but never heard of the M8 until today. This is why it is great if a wide variety of articles make the front page even if not all polished up as "features". Anyways, after reading, I was struck (as I think you are), by how little I know of whether these rockets were effective, and what role they played in the development of modern weapons like the Excocet, or ManPads. Millions made, inneffective against heavy armour. Did the M8 ever bring down a plane, stop a tank, or do anything? Is this a military dead end, or is it like the tank in WW1- developed, but didn't come into its own until WW2? Anyways, I encourage you to dig around and find out where the M8 fits into the scheme of rockets and missiles. Thanks. Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.248.112.148 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Calibre clarification?
Hello there,

Something i've come across in my research is that these are referred to both as M8 4.5 Inch (110mm) and M8 4.5 Inch (114mm) Rockets. Now, I don't believe the mm Calibre in parentheses was ever part of the official US military designation for them, so I am ponder if this is just a rounding error (4.5 Inch is 114mm, not 110mm, which is closer to 4.3 Inch). Would it cause immense edit wars and upset if the entries of (110mm) were changed to (114mm) to correct that possible error? or is it best to leave it? Thoughts? - SquireJames (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good catch - the source said 11.4cm, so 114mm. I have NO idea how that got put down as 110! Apparently convert puts down 4.5" as 110mm, leading to the error. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a rounding error from convert then? Interesting. Not really sure if I should "fix" it then, as I fear it will lead to circular "but convert says..." arguments. I guess we could try the old Andrews slogan (suck em and see!). If arguments happen, just drop the issue as unimportant? *shrug* SquireJames (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)